Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/futureoftradesunOOeliorich 


The  Future  of  Trades- 
Unionism  and  Capitalism 
in  a  Democracy 


By 
Caiarles  W.  Eliot,  LL.D. 

Preiident-Emeritus  of  Hanrard  University 


Being  the  Larwill  Lectures  for  1909 


OF  THE 

UNIVEBSr 

OF 

LiroP'"' 


G,  P.  Putnam's  Sons 

New    York    and     London 

XTbe    ftnlcfterbocfter    pte60 

1910 


mm'iv. 


\j 


COPYXIGMT,   Z9Z« 
BY 

KENYON  COLLEGE 


tube  Micftetbocker  tttu,  tktw  l^ect 


THE  LARWILL  LECTURESHIP 

This  endowrment  is  the  gift  of  Joseph  H.  Larwill  of 
the  Class  of  1855.  The  object  of  the  endowment  it  to 
provide  at  Gambier  for  the  members  of  Kenyon  College 
occasional  lectures  of  general  interest  and  also  at  least  once 
in  two  years  a  formal  academic  course  to  be  published  by 
the  Foundation.  The  donor  imposed  few  conditions, 
leaving  the  administration  of  the  Fund  and  appointments 
to  the  Lectureship  in  charge  of  the  Faculty  of  Kenyon 
College.  The  Fund  was  given  in  1 907  and  a  number  of 
occasional  lectures  have  since  been  delivered.  These 
lectures  by  President  Eliot,  delivered  at  Kenyon  College 
October  25  and  27,  1909,  constitute  the  first  formal 
course  published  by  the  Foundation. 


m 


oi  nfti  ^ 


CONTENTS 


PART  I 

THE  FUTURE  OF  TRADES    UNIONISM    IN    A 
DEMOCRACY 


PART  II 

THE  FUTURE  OF  CAPITALISM  IN  A  DEMO- 
CRACY     .     •     .     .     .      70 


PART  I 

THE  FUTURE  OF  TRADES   UNIONISM   IN   A 
DEMOCRACY 

THESE  lectures  are  to  deal  with 
the  effects  of  democracy  on  the 
future  of  trades  unionism  and 
capitalism,  two  sorts  of  powerful  com- 
bination which  have  grown  greatly  in 
size  and  strength  in  all  civilized  cotmtries 
within  the  past  twenty  years.  The 
specific  question  which  will  frequently 
recur  during  the  progress  of  these  lec- 
tures is  this:  What  effect  has  democratic 
government  had  on  these  two  great  in-  . 
dustrial  combinations  or  associations,  and 
what  effect  shotdd  it  have  in  the  future  ? 


2       Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

Incidentally,  we  shall  also  touch  on 
some  effects  which  these  combinations 
have  had  on  democratic  government 
itself.  The  interest  of  the  inquiry  is 
all  the  greater  because  most  Ameri- 
cans believe  that  the  main  source  of 
American  efficiency  is  the  high  degree 
of  social  and  industrial  liberty  which 
has  existed  from  the  beginning  in  the 
New  World. 

All  civilized  nations  now  permit  the 
formation  of  industrial  associations,  both 
of  workmen  and  of  proprietors.  So  much 
of  public  liberty  has  now  been  won, — a 
measure  of  liberty  which  was  imknown 
before  the  nineteenth  century,  so  far 
as  workmen  were  concerned.  Companies 
of  merchants  or  adventiirers,  organized 
for  purposes  of  trade,  had  long  been 
familiar,  like  the  Hudson  Bay  Company, 


In  a  Democracy  3 

the  East  India  Company,  or  the  Vir- 
ginia and  North  Virginia  Joint  Stock 
Companies  which  were  formed  in  1606 
for  the  estabhshment  of  two  colonies  on 
the  Atlantic  coast  of  America.  The 
invention  of  the  corporation  with  limited 
liability,  near  the  middle  of  the  nine- 
teenth century,  was,  however,  the  start- 
ing point  of  the  tremendous  expansion 
of  capitalistic  association, — so  recent  is 
the  creation  of  what  we  now  understand 
by  an  industrial  or  financial  corporation, 
with  its  capacity  to  bring  together  and 
control  great  masses  of  capital,  and  to 
give  employment  to  multitudes  of  la- 
borers. j[t  is  the  legislation  of  the  most 
democratic  nations  which  has  made  legal 
these    huge    combinations    of    workmen  / 

and   of   capital   employed   in   the   same  ' 

business  or  trade.     Democracy  is  indeed 


^ 


4       Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

respongible  for  the  existence  of  these 
formidable  combinations,  and  it  is  there- 
fore for  democracy  to  make  and  keep 
them  contributory  to  the  welfare  of  the 
democratic  masses. 

It  is  to  be  observed,  in  the  second 
place,  that  it  is  the  applied  science  of  the 
last  sixty  years  which  has  made  possible 
huge  associations  of  workmen  or  capi- 
talists, numerous  as  regards  membership, 
and  covering  large  areas  of  the  national 
territory,  or  even  the  whole  of  it.  The 
modem  means  of  communication  by  steam 
and  electricity  have  made  possible  quick 
and  simultaneous  action  by  great  bodies 
of  men.  A  common  interest,  or  a  com- 
mon feeling  or  passion  can  get  expressed 
in  action  over  half  the  continent  within 
a  few  hours.  Organized  labor  and  or- 
ganized capital  have  both  learnt  to  avail 


In  a  Democracy  5 

themselves  of  these  facilities  with  prompt- 
ness and  completeness.    Both  are  accus- 

»  - — "*■ ' — ' — "■■ 

tomed  to  act  in  secret,  until  an  appeal  to 
public  opinion  becomes  necessary;  and    '^ 
both    combinations   desire   and    seek    a     / 
monopoly,   or  as  near  an  approach  to 
rnqnopoly  as  circiimstances^ennit.    Now 
democracy  must  always  distrust  secret 
organizations  which  aim  at  exerting  a 
strong  and  even  an   overwhelming  in- 
fluence on  affairs  which  nearly  concern 
any  considerable  portion  of  the  popula- 
tion.   Furthermore,  freemen  have  always 
abhorred  rnonopoly,   and  are  likely  to 
continue  to  abhor  it.      Every  American| 
citizen  who  has  something  to  sell  hates    ' 
to  find,  on  trial,  that  there  is  only  one      ^ 
buyer   for   his    commodity;    and    every        ^ 
citizen  who  wishes  to  buy  something  is 
vehemently  opposed   to  any  pubhc   or 


6      Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

private  arrangement  which  results  in 
V  there  being  but  one  seller.  |  Historical 
instances  of  these  feelings  on  the  part 
of  men  who  thought  themselves  free 
are  abundant,  and  so  are  recent  ex- 
hibitions of  the  same  feelings.  Many 
modem  governments  carry  on  manu- 
factures as  monopolies  in  order  to  raise 
revenue  in  an  indirect  way;  but  this 
ancient  practice  has  never  commended 
1  itself  to  the  American  democracy.  What 
I  pT  '  the  .democracy  asks  of  its  government 
^  is,  that  it  regulate  inevitable  monopolies, 
and  prevent  any  others,  or,  in  other  ' 
words,  the  democracy  expects  its  govern- 
ment to  prevent  monopolies  from  limit- 
ing production  and  determining  prices 
in  their  own  interests  without  regard  to 
the  interest  of  the  community.  The 
labor  unions  on  the  one  hand  and  the 


In  a  Democracy  7 

corporations  on  the  other  have  created 
such  large  and  extensive  combinations 
that  no  power  but  that  of  government 
can  deal  with  them  successfully.  Hence 
the  general  democratic  demand  for  the 
governmental  regulation  of  all  public 
utilities,  including  mines,  and  of  all  the 
combinations — trusts  or  unions — ^which 
deal  with  necessaries  of  life. 

In  order  to  appreciate  the  probable 
effects  of  democracy  on  the  future  of 
trades  unionism  and  capitalism,  It  will 
be  necessary  to  keep  in  mind  the  objects 
and  ends  of  democracy.  These  are  free- 
dom and  appropriate  opportunity  for  the 
individual,  wide  though  not  equal  dis- 
tribution of  property,  and  the  untram- 
melled pursuit  of  the  durable  satisfactions 
of  life.  The  effective  democratic  powers 
for  good  are  the  intelligence  of  the  mass 


7 


1 


8       Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

of  the  people  increased  through  universal 
education,  the  efficiency  of  the  people 
at  work  through  the  exercise  of  individual 
liberty  and  co-operative  good-will,  and 
the  maintenance  throughout  the  life  of 
each  individual  of  the  hope  and  expec- 
tation of  improving  his  own,  or  his 
family's  lot.  We  shall  have  occasion  to 
inquire  how  far  trades  unionism  on  the 
one  hand  and  capitalism  on  the  other 
are  in  sympathy  with  these  ethical  and 
economic  principles  of  modem  democracy. 
We  shall  also  have  occasion  to  con- 
sider how  trusts  and  tmions  have  alike 
abused  the  new  powers  of  association 
which  free  governments  have  conferred 
on  them.  Public  liberty  gave  the  rights 
which  these  combinations  exercise,  and 
is  therefore  the  source  of  the  good  they 
do;  but  public  liberty  is  also  responsible 


In  a  Democracy  9 

for  permitting  abuses  of  the  powers  it- 
•  self  conferred.  The  abuses  now  tool 
frequently  permitted  are  very  serious, 
because  they  restrict  or  destroy  the 
individual  freedom  of  workman  or  pro- 
prietor; and  this  freedom  is  the  main 
source  of  American  efficiency. 

The  subject  of  the  first  lecture  is 
**The  Future  of  Trades  Unionism  in 
a  Democracy.''  Trades  imionism  came 
into  being  tmder  undemocratic  forms  of 
government  shortly  after  the  new  devel- 
opments of  mechanical  power  changed 
completely  the  methods  and  conditions 
of  many  fimdamental  industries.  While 
the  htmian  race  gained  many  advantages 
from  the  advent  of  steam-driven  ma- 
chinery and  factory  organization,  great 
abuses  accompanied  these  innovations. 
Good  and  evil  for  the  producing  laborers 


10     Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

and  for  the  consumers  were  intimately 
blended  in  all  the  new  factory  industries. 
The  methods  of  the  new  trades  unions, 
organized  to  improve  the  condition  of 
the  laboring  people,  were  necessarily  the 
methods  of  fighting,  violence,  and  war. 

j  The  conflicts  of  the  employed  with  the 
employers  were  often  barbarous  and 
cruel  on  both  sides.  Nevertheless,  the 
efforts  of  the  unions  were  gradually  suc- 

1  cessful.  Through  them  higher  wages 
and  shorter  hours  were  procured  at  a 
time  when  no  disinterested  and  humane 
person  could  doubt  that  wages  were  too 
low  and  hours  too  long.  This  clear 
success  gave  the  working  people  confi- 
dence in  the  violent  methods  employed. 
The  United  States  was  slow  to  import 
from  England  trades  unions  and  their 
practices,   because  the  industries  which 


In  a  Democracy  ii 

required  mechanical  power  and  factory 
organization  were  developed  later  here; 
but  when  such  industries  had  been  estab- 
lished in  this  country  in  considerable 
ntmibers,  and  when,  moreover,  large 
numbers  of  persons  of  foreign  birth  came 
to  be  employed  in  those  industries,  the 
trades  unions  became  potent  in  the 
United  States;  and  for  the  most  part 
they  adopted  the  same  policies  which  they 
saw  had  been  successful  imder  more 
trying  conditions  in  Europe.  Gradually 
new  policies,  looking  toward  the  creation 
of  a  monopoly  of  labor  in  each  particular  / 
trade  by  the  union  of  that  trade,  came  , 
into  use.  I  invite  your  attention  first 
to  a  consideration  of  these  monopolistic 
policies. 

The  first  is  the  Umitation  in  the  num- 
ber  of  apprentices  that  shall  be  employed 


12     Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

in  a  given  trade,  or  rather  in  a  given 
manufacturing  establishment.  The  rules 
of  many  unions  prescribe  the  number  of 
apprentices  that  shall  be  employed  in 
any  industrial  or  producing  estabUshment 
in  proportion  to  the  number  of  journey- 
men employed,  and  this  limit  of  the 
number  of  apprentices  is  ordinarily  far 
below  the  nimiber  which  it  wotild  be  for 
the  interest  of  the  proprietor  to  employ. 
The  object  of  this  limitation  is  to  keep 
down  the  ntimber  of  journeymen  in  the 
trade,  so  as  to  prevent  the  coming  into 
the  trade  of  a  ntimber  of  persons  so  great 
as  to  affect  the  rate  of  wages,  or,  in  other 
words,  to  produce  within  the  trade  an 
undesirable  competition  for  employment. 
With  a  similar  intention,  trades  unions 
have  in  general  resisted  the  introduction 
of  trade  schools  into  public-school  sys- 


n 


In  a  Democracy  13 

terns,  and  have  also  been  disposed  to 
interfere  with  the  work  of  private  or 
endowed  trade  schools.  They  thought 
they  saw  in  such  schools  a  danger  of  an 
over-supply,  from  their  point  of  view, 
of  competent  candidates  for  admission 
to  the  trades.  Of  late  years,  however, 
the  attitude  of  the  unions  toward  trade 
schools  has  become  less  hostile  than  it 
formerly  was,  partly  because  of  the  ease 
with  which  trades  unions  have  in  many 
communities  enlisted  the  graduates  of 
trade  schools,  and  partly  because  of  the 
steady  rise  of  wages  in  most  trades  in 
spite  of  the  advent  of  trade  school 
graduates.  The  policy  of  limiting  the 
number  of  apprentices  flies  in  the  face 
of  the  American  doctrine  that  education 
should  be  free  to  all,  and  should  furnish 
a  useful  training  for  the  practice  of  any 


/ 


14     Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

art,  trade,  or  profession.  Moreover,  it 
is  a  selfish  and  monopolistic  policy  with- 
out mitigation.  Its  object  is  to  keep 
down  the  number  of  workmen  in  the 
trade  concerned,  to  raise  wages,  and 
thereby  to  make  the  product  scarcer  and 
dearer.  In  many  imions  the  rules  make 
apprenticeship  tmnecessarily  long;  so  that 
all  the  instruction  to  be  obtained  as  an 
apprentice  has  been  received  long  before 
the  apprentice  is  permitted  to  become 
a  journeyman.  The  same  lesson  is  given 
a  thousand  times,  when  the  youth  can 
easily  assimilate  its  substance  and  ac- 
quire the  corresponding  skill  from  only 
a  hundred  repetitions.  Furthermore, 
many  unions  lay  down  rules  which  make 
it  hard  for  a  journeyman  to  become  an 
employer,  prescribing,  for  example,  that 
no  one  shall  become  an  employer  imtil 


In  a  Democracy  15 

he  is  prepared  to  employ  a  specified  num-  c^^^ 
ber  of  journeymen.      Such  rules  tend  to 
stiffen  every  class  or  set  of  mechanics 
or  operatives.     Each  p1^s;s?  is  hard  to  get 
into,    and   still   harcjf^r   to    S^^    ^^^^-  ^\ 


so    that    the    true    demorTp),|,]r    mnhilify 
between  classes  or  sets  of  working  oeo-^       ,^X 
pie  is  seriously  impaired.     In  the  usefufT  \^ 

organizations  representing  the  professions  ^  lU^ "^ 
and  other  liberal  callings  there  is  nothing 
which  corresponds  to  this  stiffening  of 
social  classes  brought  about  by  trades 
unionism,  and  in  trades  unionism  itself 
there  is  no  need  of  it.      It  is  a  survival    iLg^^^ 
of  the  fighting  times  of  trades  unionism.  ]      f/A     ^n 
Every  fighting  organization  is  compelled    ^  -saA  *^' 
to  sacrifice  in  large  measure  the  indi- 
vidual liberty  of  its  members.      Herein 
unionism  and  democracy  are  in  absolute       ^ 
f}2]2nigjj;ion 


^ 


indi-  v/ 


r 


1 6     Future  of  Trades  Unionism 


Two    other    monopolistic    inventions 
'        have,  within  years  comparatively  recent, 
\  ^     been  adopted  by  trades  unionism,   the 
V^    f-x     boycott,  and  the  union  label.    The  boy- 
'  ^  cott  is  intended  to  prevent  all  persons 
from    buying,    or    even    handling    com- 
mercially,  articles  not  made  by  tmion 
labor;  and  the  union  label  is  intended  to 
support  the  boycott,  and  to  enable  and 
induce  the  public  to  discriminate  against 
articles   which   do   not   bear   the   label. 
The  object  of  both  policies  is  to  secure 
all  the  productive  labor  in  a  given  trade 
for  union  men;  to  this  end  articles  or 
goods  made  by  non-union  men  must  find 
no  market.       The  monopolistic  aim  of 
these  policies  is  perfectly  plain,  although 
it  is  often  denied  by  labor  leaders,  who 
dislike   to   have   that   word   applied   to 
their  own  practices. 


In  a  Democracy  17 

Any  strong  union  will  be  very  strenu-1 
ous  in  resisting  any  trespasses  on  what   T)  A^^^ 
it  regards  as  its  own  province  or  field   ryff'*) 
of  labor  by  members  of  other  trades  or   .         JjJ' 
indeed  of  other  unions.       Thus,  for  in-  )ty  ^  [^ 
stance,  if  a  union  man  who  is  putting  -  v  )]    I  a  J 
into   a   new   building   the   tubes   which 
enclose  electric  wires  should  use  a  hammer 
and  cold  chisel  to  cut  a  little  recess  in      ^ 
a  brick  wall  to  accommodate  the  small     ^....^ 
box  through  which  the  direction  of  the        «)f* 
tubing  is  often  changed,  all  the  brick-  ^^.jjs^v''^ 
layers  employed  in  the  building  would  lay  .qju^^ 
down  their  tools — the  wiring  man  would   tj,^-'^ 
be  trespassing  on  the  province  of  the 
Bricklayers'  Union.    This  policy  is  mono- 
polistic in  the  highest  degree  and,  more-     . 
over,  increases  the  total  cost  of  every 
building  which  requires  the  services  of 
members  of  various  crafts.     It  also  tends 


1 8     Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

to  narrow  the  field  of  each  trade,  thereby 
diminishing  the  variety  of  interest  in 
the  work  of  the  trade  and  the  variety 
of  personal  capacity  to  be  gratified 
therein. 

Many  unions  refuse  to  handle  in  their 
respective  trades  materials  made  by  non- 
union labor,  or  coming  from  factories 
which  are  not  conducted  exclusively  on 
union  rules.  This  policy,  if  carried  out 
successfully  by  a  strong  union  which 
J^'  yi^overs  a  large  area,  is  capable  of  forcing 
Y^rT  the  manufacturer  to  unionize  his  estab- 

] '  lishment ;  whereupon  the  unfortunate  con- 

sjr    i    sumer  is  likely  to  be  at  the  mercy  of  the 

^^  L  manufacturer  and  the  union  combined. 
These  monopolistic  combinations  are 
often  entirely  successful  in  the  United 
States,  or  in  large  parts  thereof,  par- 
ticularly in  the  building  trades,  and  their 


In  a  Democracy  19 

recent  successes  account  for  a  consider- 
able portion  of  the  great  rise  of  prices 
which  has  taken  place  in  this  country 
during  the  last  five  years.  The  manu- 
facturer of  plumbers'  supplies,  for  exam- 
ple, makes  an  agreement  that  he  will  sell 
only  to  jobbers  and  to  plumbers.  The 
jobber  agrees  that  he  will  sell  only  to 
plumbers.  The  plumbers  are  all  union 
men.  The  owner  of  a  building  imder 
construction  cannot  buy  plumbers'  sup- 
plies unless  from  some  independent  manu- 
facturer who  is  not  in  the  combination. 
If  he  buys  of  such  an  independent  manu- 
facturer, the  pltimbers  at  work  in  his 
building  will  not  touch  the  materials  he 
has  bought.  In  the  district  covered  by  ^  ajp.t- 
such  an  agreement  there  is  no  competi-  >^  ' 
tion  which  is  really  free.  If  there  are  ,^tn^ 
plumbing  materials  produced  under  union       ,   p^ 


r^ 


20     Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

rules  which  differ  in  merit  or  availabihty, 
the  owner  or  builder  may  have  some 
choice   among   those   various   products; 

rbut  it  is  easy  for  the  group  of  manu- 
facturers to  arrange  prices  to  suit  them- 
selves, and  the  constimer  will  probably 
find  himself  at  their  mercy.  The  root 
of  this  serious  difficulty  for  the  average 
constmier  is  in  the  policy  of  the  unions  not 
to  handle  non-union-made  materials.  It 
.is  a  strong  monopolistic  policy  which 
J  a /practically  destroys  free  competition.  A 
""^  .^r%.^iBxm.eT  out  on  the  prairie  who  with  his 
son  can  himself  screw  pipes  together  and 
set  up  a  sink  or  a  bowl  may  be  able  to 
buy  his  materials  of  independent  manu- 
facturers; but  the  dweller  in  towns  and 
cities  who  does  not  possess  the  farmer's 
skill  or  enjoy  his  privacy  has  no  defence 
against    the    plumbers'    monopoly.     As 


r 


In  a  Democracy  21 

a  nde,  the  employing  or  contracting 
plimiber  is  equally  defenceless. 

It  wotild  be  hard  to  exaggerate  the 
intense  opposition  between  all  these 
monopolistic  policies  and  the  individual 
freedom  in  education,  in  family  life,  in 
productive  labor,  and  in  trade,  which  is 
the  object  and  end  of  rlrmnrrnry       -^ 

The  limitation  of  output  is  a  trades- 
union  practice  which  combines  in  an 
unwholesome  way  a  selfish  unfaithful- 
ness to  duty  in  the  individual  workman 
with  a  deceptive  notion  of  philanthropic 
interest  in  fellow-workmen.  It  seems 
to  be  based  on  the  idea  that  the  amount 
of  work  to  be  done  in  any  given  trade  at 
any  given  time  is  a  fixed  quantity,  and 
that  the  smaller  the  contribution  each 
workman  makes  to  that  fixed  quantity, 
the  more  workmen  must  be  employed  to 


X 


1^ 


22     Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

accomplish  the  total  task.  Therefore, 
the  less  each  workman  does  in  a  day,  the 
^l"  more  of  his  comrades  will  get  employ- 
ment.  Wherever  this  policy  is  success- 
fully carried  out,  the  result  is  that  the 
individual  trades  unionist  does  a  day's 
work  much  below  his  reasonable  capac- 
ity, to  his  own  demoralization  and  the 
destruction  of  real  good-will  between 
\  employer  and  employed.  It  is  impos- 
sible for  a  workman  to  preserve  his  own 
self-respect  or  his  own  personal  efficiency, 
if  he  habitually  works  for  day's  wages  at 
a  speed  below  his  natural  personal  capac- 
ity. If  this  policy  shotild  be  successfully 
carried  out  in  many  large-scale  indus- 
tries throughout  the  United  States,  the 
efficiency  of  the  population  at  work 
wotild  be  seriously  reduced  within  ten 
years,  and  the  reduction  would  be  pro- 


In  a  Democracy  23 

gressive.  No  man,  however  well  edu- 
cated, intelligent,  and  naturally  ambi- 
tious, can  long  resist  the  effect  on  his  own 
character  of  working  in  the  way  pre- 
scribed by  many  unions  to  limit  output. 
He  will  soon  become  an  indifferent,  unam- 
bitious workman,  without  any  genuine 
good-will  toward  either  his  employer  or  |  fl 
the  public;  and  the  pretended  altruistic 
motive  in  favor  of  his  feirow-workmen 
in  the  same  trade  will  not  protect  him 
from  this  degeneration,  because  it  is 
vague,  uncertain,  and  selfish  for  his  class, 
as  well  as  for  himself.  This  limitation 
of  work  is  the  most  degrading  of  all 
the  trades-union  doctrines  and  practices; 
for  it  destroys  the  enjoyment  of  achiev- 
ing, and  that  enthusiastic  pursuit  of  an 
ideal  which  makes  work  done  in  an 
artistic  spirit  and  with  good  will  a  durable 


7 


24     Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

%  (  satisfaction  throughout  life.  It  defeats 
the  true  denaocratic  standard  for  a  work- 
ingman's     life  —  increasing    intelligenp^, 


>      \^  efficiency,  personal  liberty,  and  coopera- 

fT         V  \  ''I    '  ' " " 

'-  ,    X  \  tive  good-will.     In  resisting  to  the  utmost 
^        '  this  doctrine  of  the  limitation  of  output, 
Q     :he  associations  of  employers  are  defend- 
t     ing  democracy,  and  promoting  the  pros- 
perity and    happiness    of   the    laboring 
multitudes. 

Another  trades-union  doctrine  that  has 
had  a  very  unfortunate  effect  on  individ- 
ual character  is  the  doctrine  or  practice 
of  the  minimtim  wage.  All  members  of 
a  imion — in  the  carpenter's  or  mason's 
trade,  for  example — ^must  receive,  when 
employed,  a  certain  wage  called  the 
minimimi.  In  practice  that  wage  turns 
out  to  be  a  uniform  maximtmi  wage,  and 
it  is  ordinarily  put  at  a  level  above  the 


c     °^  V 

^"""^"^^Tn  a  Democracy  25 

worth  of  the  less  skilful  workmen,  and 
below  the  worth  of  the  most  skilful;  and 
no  distinction  is  made  between  the  yotmg 
man  who  has  just  been  admitted  to  the 
union  and  the  older  man  who  possesses  a 
much  higher  degree  of  skill.  This  prac- 
tice is  for  the  pecuniary  interest  of  the 
younger  and  least  skilful  workmen,  who, 
as  a  rule,  predominate  in  the  union,  or  at 
least  are  its  most  assiduous  members. 
The  first  effect  of  this  practice  is  to 
deprive  the  yotmger  members  of  a  tmion 
of  all  motive  for  improvement.  No 
amount  of  personal  merit  can  procure  for 
the  young  member  of  the  union  an 
advance  of  wages.  He  receives  at  the 
start  the  uniform  wage,  and  the  veteran 
who  is  a  member  of  the  same  union  is 
receiving  no  more.  No  effort  on  his  W 
part  can  raise  his  wages.     The  only  way 


26     Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

in  which  a  union  man's  wages  can  be 
advanced  is  through  the  collective  bar- 
gaining of  the  imion,  and  any  advance 
effected  by  the  union  will  take  effect  on 
all  workmen,  good,  bad,  and  indifferent — 
\      ^      so  far  as  employment  can  be  procured 
"1^  X'lf^l    for  them.     No  increase  of  skill  or  effi- 
^    '4(  ciency  in  the  individual  workman  will 

'  '  ^  f  avail  to  increase  his  income.  The  dis- 
^  astrous  effect  of  this  policy  of  the  uniform 
wage  on  the  desirable  and  happy  increase 
of  intelligence,  efficiency,  and  good  will 
as  life  goes  on,  is  perfectly  apparent. 
The  contrast  between  the  effects  on  the 
individual  workman  of  the  employments 
regulated  by  unions  and  the  effects  of  the 
liberal  and  artistic  professions  on  the 
individuals  comprising  them  is  striking 
indeed.  It  is  one  of  the  principal  attrac- 
tions of  a  profession  or  an  artistic  calling 


//' 


In  a  Democracy  2^ 

that  the  progress  of  the  individual  depends 
on  his  own  personal  merit  and  industry. 
For  a  successful  man  in  these  callings 
the  compensation  rises  throughout  life. 
It  may  begin  small  in  comparison  with 
the  wages  of  a  young  unionist  in  a  trade; 
but  it  rises  soon  and  much  higher.  The 
professional  man  or  the  artist  has  the 
joy  of  personal  achievement  and  the  re- 
wards appropriate  to  rising  merit.  Now 
every  successful  artisan  ought  to  win 
that  joy,  and  analogous,  if  not  equal, 
rewards.  The  trades-union  doctrine  of 
the  uniform  wage  stands  squarely  in  his 
way.  The  tmion  represses  ambition  for 
excellence.  It  is  true  that  labor  leaders 
and  representatives  of  trades  unionism 
often  allege  that  the  unions  have  no 
objection  to  the  employer's  paying  more 
than  the  minimum  wage;  but  this  state- 


28     Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

ment  by  no  means  meets  the  objection  to 
the  general  policy  of  uniform  wages,  and, 
moreover,  that  policy  is  supported  by 
the  limitation  of  output  and  by  the 
serious  objection  made  by  most  unionists 
to  ''pace-setters''  and  other  zealous  or 
unusually  rapid  workers.  The  fact  is, 
that  the  unions  think  it  necessary  to 
sacrifice  individual  liberty,  and  all  that 
comes  of  it,  to  the  necessity  of  standing 
together  for  a  higher  minimimi  wage. 
Now  a  true  democracy  means  endless 
variety  of  capacity  freely  developed  and 
appropriately  rewarded,  Uniformity  of 
wages  ignores  the  diversity  of  local 
conditions  as  well  as  of  personal  ca- 
pacity, obstructs  the  ambitious  workman, 
cuts  off  from  steady  employment  those 
who  cannot  really  earn  the  minimum 
wage,    and  interferes  seriously  with  the 


In  a  Democracy  29 

I 

workman's  prospect  of  improving  his 
lot. 

It  is  high  time  it  should  be  generally 
understood  that  trades  unionism  in  im- 
portant respects  works  against  the  very- 
best  effects  of  democracy.  It  is  the 
practices  of  the  professions,  the  higher 
walks  of  business,  and  the  artistic  callings, 
which  best  illustrate  the  fortunate  results 
of  genuine  democracy  on  personal  char- 
acter, or,  in  other  words,  the  effects  on 
individual  character  of  the  utmost  liberty 
under  law. 

In  contending  against  the  tmiform 
wage  and  the  limitation  of  output, 
employers  in  many  highly  organized 
industries  have  resorted  to  the  method  of 
compensation  called  piece  work^  and  to  a 
systematic  subletting  to  a  group  of  work- 
men who  among  themselves  make  their 


</. 


30     Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

own  bargains,  of  the  labor  of  constructing 
some  part  of  the  total  machine,  garment, 
piece  of  furniture,  or  other  object,  which 
is  the  product  of  the  factory  concerned. 
Either  of  these  arrangements  makes  it 
possible  for  the  employer  to  determine 
with  an  approach  to  accuracy  the  labor 
cost  of  the  article  he  produces,  and 
makes  him  independent  of  the  imion's 
scale  or  schedule  of  wages.  Either  of 
these  methods  affords  scope  for  the 
meritorious  or  able  individual,  and  is 
.  Jc  therefore  much  to  be  preferred  by  the 
I  workman,  unless  the  stimulation  to  the 
individual  is  so  intense,  and  the  piece  or 
contract  work  so  limited  and  monoton- 
ous as  to  become  imwholesome.  Unfor- 
ttmately  there  are  many  industries  to 
which  piece  work  and  contract  work  are 
not    easily    applicable.     Moreover,    the 


In  a  Democracy  31 

unions^s  a  rule,  oppose  the  use  of  these 
methods  of  compensation.  .    /} 

The   multiplication   of   trades   unions  /     y^U^ 


and  their  strength  atjast  compelled  manu-      ^  fT 

9 


facturers  to  form  associations  capable  of 
resisting  the  powerful  unions.  It  was 
much  more  difficult  to  form  strong  asso- 
ciations of  owners  or  employers  than  to 
form  trades  unions,  and  it  was  only 
recently  that  the  manufacturers'  and 
employers'  associations  really  came  into 
effective  existence.  The  fact  seems  to 
I  be,  that  neither  combination,  if  vast  and 
I  successful,  is  endurable  in  civilized  so- 
ciety without  the  other.  Either  alone 
would  be  intolerably  tyrannical.  A  sin- 
gle manufacturer,  or  a  single  railroad, 
I  finds  it  very  difficult  to  resist  the  strike 
or  the  boycott;  and  the  imions  became 
ingenious  in  attacking  one  proprietor  or 


^ 


S: 


32     Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

one  corporation  at  a  time,  or  in  attacking 
a  public-utility  corporation  in  one  city 
at  a  time,  or  the  railroads  in  only  one 
section  of  the  country  at  a  time.  In 
short,  they  learned  how  to  conquer  by 
dividing  or  distributing  their  attacks. 

The  necessity  of  encountering  associa- 
tions of  employers  which  were  as  wide- 
spread and  comprehensive  as  the  unions, 
and  fully  as  strong,  led  the  unions  to  the 
invention  and  development  of  the  joint 
agreement  which  is  an  agreement  con- 
cerning wages,  hours,  and  conditions  of 
labor,  covering  a  specified  period,  and 
made  after  conference  between  a  union 
or  imions  and  a  manufacturer  or  an 
association  or  group  of  manufacturers. 
.  It  has  often  been  said  of  late  that  the 
joint  agreement  is  the  real  goal  of 
unionism.     The  capitalist,  or  the  associa- 


In  a  Democracy  33 

tion  of  capitalists,  is  forced  to  deal  with 
the  iinion,  and  not  with  individual  work- 
men. The  union  secures  collective  bar- 
gaining, and  is  much  more  vigorous  in 
that  bargaining  than  the  individual  work- 
man could  possibly  be.  The  parties  to 
the  agreement  are  strong  and  resolute, 
and  yet  both  dread  a  stoppage  of  work. 
Evidently  this  sort  of  negotiation,  what- 
ever its  outcome,  is  much  to  be  preferred 
to  destruction  of  property,  fighting  be- 
tween union  men  and  non-union,  and  the 
arrest  of  production,  particularly  if  the 
industry  concerned  has  to  do  with  neces- 
saries of  life  or  with  transportation.  In 
short,  the  joint  agreement  is  an  improve- 
ment on  industrial  war;  but  its  plain 
tendency  is  to  determine  wages  and  con- 
ditions of  work  on  the  one  hand,  and 
profits  on  the  other,  with  the  least  pos- 


yf\ 


34     Future  of  Trades  Unionism 


^^^^^^^''^^''sible  regard  to  the  consumers.  In  the 
^^j^/f^y^  discussion  of  any  joint  agreement  the 
fimdamental  question  must  always  be — 
what  terms  can  the  two  parties  acting 
together  exact  from  the  community  at 
large?  The  two  combinations  are  both 
monopolistic  in  desire  and  tendency. 
Can  they  settle  their  differences  by  a 
compromise,  and  force  the  community  at 
large  to  pay  the  cost?  If  they  think  they 
can,  they  will ;  for  that  is  by  far  the  easiest 
way  to  adjust  their  differences  and  keep 
the  industry  going,  which  is  for  the  inter- 
est of  both  the  contending  parties. 

In  democratic  society,  however,  the 
effects  of  the  combined  action  of  these 
two  powerful  organizations,  of  labor  on 
the  one  hand  and  capital  on  the  other, 
can  be  checked  in  three  ways,  which 
involve  the  use  of  no  autocratic  power, 


In  a  Democracy  35 

but  depend  on  the  voluntary  action  of 
the  mass  of  the  consumers,  which  is  also 
the  mass  of  the  voters. 

The  first  way  of  resisting  the  monopo- 
listic force  of  such  a  combination  of  a 
corporation  with  a  trades  tmion  is  the 
immediate  and  widespread  reduction  in 
the  consumption  of  the  article  affected 
by  the  monopoly.  The  constiming  power 
of  the  American  people  for  any  given 
article  of  food  or  clothing  or  building 
material  is  distinctly  limited,  and  much 
more  closely  limited  than  people  sup- 
pose. A  considerable  rise  of  prices  forces 
multitudes  of  the  common  people  to  give 
up  using  articles  to  which  they  have  been 
accustomed,  or  to  reduce  the  amount 
they  use.  Prices  easily  become  pro- 
hibitive for  a  large  portion  of  the  popu- 
lation.     Cheaper    materials    thereupon 


36     Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

replace  the  dearer.  Thus  cheaper  and 
poorer  woods  replace  pine,  soft  stones  re- 
place hard,  concrete  comes  into  use  instead 
of  brick  or  stone,  stews  replace  roasts,  and 
cotton  fabrics  take  the  place  of  woollen. 
This  all  means  that  in  an  intelligent  and 
wide-awake  democratic  society,  which 
does  not  dread  but  rather  likes  the  new 
or  novel,  and  is  not  the  slave  of  tradition, 
the  constraiption  of  any  article  which  has 
become  subject  to  a  monopoly  may  be 
suddenly  and  effectively  reduced.  Even 
the  most  solid  monopolies  fear  the  absti- 
nence of  the  constimer. 

The  second  method  of  resistance  to 
monopolies  in  the  United  States  depends 
on  American  inventiveness.  In  this 
country  invention  progressively  develops 
new  materials,  tools,  machines,  and  struct- 
tires,  which  may  impair  the  value  of  the 


In  a  Democracy  37 

stock-in-trade  of  established  industries 
and  trades,  and  ultimately  compel  modi- 
fications of  their  plants,  products,  and 
policies.  Thus,  the  invention  of  mercer- 
ized cotton  and  the  great  extension  of  its 
applications  in  the  arts  have  in  recent 
years  equipped  the  American  people  to 
defend  themselves  against  the  high  prices 
of  silk  goods.  The  mass  of  the  people 
have  replaced  silk  goods  in  large  measure 
with  cotton  goods,  made  to  look  and  feel 
like  silk.  Again,  the  high  wages  in  the 
building  trades  and  in  the  trades  which 
prepare  btiilding  materials,  and  the  high 
price  of  land  have  developed  the  tall 
apartment  house  and  the  tenement  house 
in  closely  built  cities  where  land  is 
dearest,  and  the  wooden  three-decker  in 
suburbs.  The  ordinary  American  family, 
whose  bread-winner  earns  from  fifteen  to 


38     Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

twenty-five  dollars  a  week,  has  thus  been 
forced  into  much  smaller  quarters  than 
it  used  to  occupy  in  its  separate  house 
with  a  bit  of  land  about  it.  Tolerably 
effective  resistance  has  thus  been  made 
to  the  rise  in  the  cost  of  building,  and 
therefore  in  rents;  and  this  resistance  has 
been  made  possible  through  a  long  series 
of  inventions  and  contrivances  worked 
out  by  architects  and  builders.  The 
ultimate  result — ^the  crowding  of  the 
family  into  a  few  small  rooms — ^is  much 
to  be  deplored;  but  the  American  con- 
sumer has  demonstrated  on  a  large  scale 
that  he  knows  how  to  take  advantage 
of  new  inventions  and  contrivances  to 
meet  the  adverse  conditions  forced  on  him 
by  monopolistic  combinations  of  laborers 
and  capitalists  acting  together  under 
joint  agreements.    This  check  on  mon- 


In  a  Democracy  39 

opoly  is,  however,  less  effective  in  the 
United  States  than  it  is  in  England; 
because  American  law  permits  an  indus- 1 
trial  corporation  or  partnership  to  buy 
and  pocket  any  patent  which  threatens 
to  modify  its  business;  whereas  in  Eng- 
land the  buyer  of  a  patent  must  make 
use  of  it  within  a  reasonable  time,  or 
the  patent  is  invalidated.  There  is  urg- 
ent need  of  a  change  of  American  law  in 
this  respect. 

The  third  democratic  remedy  for  the  '  y 
evils  brought  upon  the  community  by 
monopolistic  combinations  is  legislative 
regulation.  This  remedy  has  been 
brought  into  use  in  the  United  States 
because  of  the  attempts  of  monopolistic 
combinations  to  control  the  supply  or 
price  of  necessaries  of  life,  such  as  water, 
light,  fuel,  food,  and  steam  and  electric 


1>5 


40     Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

transportation.  The  intervention  of  gov- 
ernment has  oftenest  taken  place  con- 
cerning fuel,  light,  and  transportation; 
but  it  is  always  at  hand  ready  to  be 
called  on  to  limit  monopolies,  and  able 
to  enforce  its  orders  through  courts  and 
special  commissions.  Those  perfect  mon- 
opolies, patents  and  copyrights,  have 
shown  legislators  and  lawyers  how  mon- 
opolies in  general,  either  nattiral  or 
artificial,  may  best  be  regulated.  They 
may  be  limited  to  specified  periods  of  time 
or  to  specified  areas,  or,  as  in  the  case  of 
railroads,  to  specified  rates.  Democracy 
will  probably  take  more  kindly  to  the 
regulation  of  monopolies  than  any  other 
form  of  government;  because  it  takes 
more  thought  than  any  other  form  of 
government  for  the  welfare  of  the  silent 
but  voting  masses. 


In  a  Democracy  41 

It  is  under  these  limitations,  then, 
that  any  industrial  combination,  whether 
of  laborers  or  of  capitalists,  must  work  in 
a  democracy.  Under  earlier  forms  of 
government,  the  worst  monopolist  was 
often  the  government  itself.  Under  de- 
mocracy, the  government  may,  through 
its  tax  laws,  including  tariffs,  become  the 
protector  or  promoter  of  some  monopo- 
lies, but  does  not  itself  conduct  any 
monopolized  industry  for  a  profit. 

A  very  undemocratic  element  in  the 
conduct  of  both  labor  unions  and  em- 
ployers' associations  is  the  secrecy  with 
which  the  business  they  think  important 
is  conducted.  The  object  of  this  secrecy 
is  in  both  cases  preparation  for  war. 
The  labor  imion  which  is  planning  a 
campaign  for  higher  wages,  shorter  hours, 
or  improved  conditions  under  which  to 


42     Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

perform  their  labor,  thinks  that  the  blow 
they  are  preparing  to  deliver  must  be 
struck  on  a  sudden  without  warning  to 
the  employing  person  or  corporation. 
A  proprietor,  personal  or  corporate,  who 
is  contemplating  a  lockout  or  a  re- 
duction in  wages  feels  in  the  same  way 
about  the  necessary  suddenness  of  the 
announcement.  In  either  case  the  blow 
must  be  struck  without  giving  the  other 
party  time  to  prepare  a  defense.  In  all 
such  cases  the  industrial  dispute  begins 
in  the  most  disadvantageous  manner, 
that  is,  with  a  deep  sense  of  injury  on  the 
part  of  the  party  surprised.  One  of  the 
objects  of  the  admirable  Canadian  Act 
called  the  Industrial  Disputes  Investi- 
gation Act  was  to  prevent  this  sudden- 
ness of  attack  by  either  party  to  a 
dispute.     It  provides  that  no  strike  and 


In  a  Democracy  43 

no  lockout  shall  be  legal  until  the  dispute 
has  been  thoroughly  investigated  by  an 
impartial  tribunal,  and  the  finding  of  the 
tribunal  made  public.  The  Act  pro- 
vides for  no  arbitration  whatever,  and 
depends  wholly  upon  the  complete  pub- 
licity which  either  party  to  a  dispute 
may  secure.  The  Act,  however,  does 
prevent  a  sudden  strike  or  a  sudden 
lockout,  because  the  appointment  of  a 
tribunal  and  its  action  usually  requires 
from  fotir  to  six  weeks.  Meantime, 
public  opinion  has  been  thoroughly  in- 
formed concerning  the  causes  of  the  dis- 
pute, having  received  the  report  of  a 
special  tribunal  appointed  in  an  equit- 
able manner  to  investigate  the  dispute 
with  all  possible  publicity.  This  Act 
has  now  been  in  force  for  three  years, 
and  the  experience  of  Canada  tmder  it 


44     Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

is  in  the  highest  degree  promising.  If 
any  party  to  an  industrial  dispute  ex- 
hibits distrust  of  publicity,  the  probabil- 
ity is  that  there  has  been  something  in  its 
conduct  which  it  fears  the  public  will 
not  approve;  it  is  not  sure  of  the  real 
equity  of  its  conduct.  The  whole  re- 
liance of  this  Canadian  invention  is  on 
the  effect  of  publicity  concerning  indus- 
,  trial  disputes.  This  accoimts  for  the 
provision  that  either  party  to  a  dispute 
may  secure  the  appointment  of  an  impar- 

rtial  tribunal.  The  consent  of  the  other 
party  is  not  necessary,  though  it  is  desir- 
able. For  preventing  industrial  war- 
fare, the  provisions  of  this  Investigation 
Act  are  much  wiser  than  those  of  ^ny 
arbitration  procedure  thus  far  devised. 
/  Experience  has  proved  that  arbitration 
means    compromise    between    opposing 


) 


In  a  Democracy  45 

claims,  and  it  is  nniform  experience  that 
the  prospect  of  a  compromise  exaggerates 
the  claims  of  both  parties.  Moreover, 
there  are  many  industrial  disputes  which 
should  not  be  settled  by  any  compromis- 
ing adjustment.  The  arbitration  method 
as  practised  in  industrial  warfare  is  an 
actual  promoter  of  hostile  relations  and 
future  strife. 

A  discredited  method  in  industrial 
strife  is  the  sympathetic  strike,  or  the 
strike  of  men  who,  having  themselves  no 
grievance  or  subject  of  complaint,  aban- 
don their  work  to  support  a  imion  or 
tmions  in  some  other  trade  in  which  war 
is  going  on  between  employers  and 
employed.  The  sympathetic  strike  was 
used  frequently  a  few  years  ago  as  a  for- 
midable weapon  of  offense  against  em- 
ployers as  a  class;  but  it  turned  out  that 


46     Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

this  proceeding  did  not  commend  itself 
to  the  popular  judgment;  so  that  instead 
of  strengthening  the  position  of  the 
strikers  who  had  a  grievance  it  really- 
weakened  it.  The  comparative  disuse 
of  the  sympathetic  strike  is  a  good 
illustration  of  the  effect  of  pubUc  opinion 
on  labor-union  policies.  The  frequent 
failure  of  boycotts  is  another  illustration 
of  the  real  control  of  public  opinion 
over  trades-union  policies,  when  those 
policies  run  counter  to  the  average  judg- 
ment of  the  democratic  masses.  The 
boycotts  ordered  and  maintained  by  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  have  fre- 
quently failed  of  their  object,  although  it 
is  only  in  recent  years  that  the  courts 
have  begtm  to  defend  society  from  these 
O  outrageous  interferences  with  industrial 
liberty. 


In  a  Democracy  47 

In  the  United  States  the  so-called 
general  strike  has  never  been  attempted, 
although  in  one  recent  instance  it  has 
been  threatened.  Such  strikes  have  been 
attempted  several  times  in  Europe,  but 
usually  with  some  purpose  of  a  reforma- 
tory or  revolutionary  sort.  American 
labor  leaders  have  seen  clearly,  first,  that 
the  general  or  universal  strike  is  impos- 
sible for  any  length  of  time,  and  secondly, 
that  democracy  would  not  tolerate  a 
general  suspension  of  industries  with  no 
other  object  than  to  promote  the  pecimi- 
ary  interest  of  a  single  class,  or  of  any  set 
or  group  of  workmen  however  large. 

It  has  been  the  greatest  reproach  of      ) 
trades  unionism  that  it  does  nothing  to   i      ^v 
prevent  the  use  of  violence  in  industrial    A  y 
disputes.     A  hundred  years  ago,  or  even    j     ^ 
fifty  years  ago,  in  Europe  violence  and 


48  .   Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

disorder  were  the  inevitable  accompani- 
ments of  all  strikes,  and  the  public  force 
of  police  or  soldiery  that  stopped  violence 
and  prevented  the  destruction  of  property- 
was  directed  by  autocratic  or  oligarchic 
governments  which  represented  the  opin- 
ions of  only  the  upper  classes  of  society. 
p(  It  is  very  different  in  this  country.     It 

is  the  great  mass  of  the  people  in  a  de- 
mocracy like  that  of  the  United  States 
which  resents  mob  violence,  the  de- 
struction of  property,  and  the  breaking 
of  the  public  peace;  and  in  consequence  a 
strong  public  opinion  at  once  begins  to  set 
against  any  striking  union  or  group  of 
unions  which  takes  to  violence.  It  is 
only  a  question  of  time  when  this  public 
opinion  will  get  expression  in  the  vigorous 
use  of  the  public  protective  force.  In 
remote  or  sparsely  settled  regions,  where 


In  a  Democracy  49 

no  adequate  public  protective  force  exists, 
violence  in  strikes  may  be  for  a  time 
successful;  but  it  is  almost  sure  to  be 
defeated  in  the  end  by  a  superior  force 
which  fights  for  order  and  the  publig 
peace.  In  the  repression  of  public  dis- 
order of  any  sort  a  democratic  govern- 
ment will  often  use  the  public  force  sooner 
and  more  severely  than  a  despotic  or  aris- 
tocratic government  would  dare  to  do. 
The  reason  is  that  the  public  force  used 
is  itself  a  democratic  force,  commanding 
the  sympathy  and  support  of  the  great  . 
body  of  the  people.  Exceptions  to  this  / 
general  principle  sometimes  occur;  buf 
they  are  almost  always  cases  in  which 
mob  violence  is  used  in  support  of  a 
widespread  popular  prejudice  or  in  sym- 
pathy with  some  popular  passion.  It 
may  reasonably  be  expected  that  trades 


k 


^  jiP^    50    Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

^  \y^  unionism  will  more  and  more  give  over 
the  use  of  violence  during  strikes;  and 
the  reason  will  be  that  the  democracy  is 
offended  by  violence,  and  the  cause  of 
the  strikers  is  weakened  thereby. 

Any  one  who  has  been  long  engaged 
in  the  work  of  teaching  will  necessarily 
have  a  strong  sympathy  with  much  of 
the  work  that  labor  unions  have  done  in 
the  world,  and  with  some  of  the  prin- 
ciples which  still  animate  them  and  make 
their  strength.  A  teacher  or  an  educa- 
tional administrator  has  probably  been 
himself  employed  under  humane  con- 
ditions, and  the  work  to  which  he  has 
been  devoted  is  prestmiably  a  process  of 
gradually  uplifting  htmian  society,  or 
that  part  of  it  which  is  within  his  field 
of  influence.  Now  the  members  of  trades 
imions,  as  a  rule,  believe  that  the  work  of 


In  a  Democracy  51 

the  unions  tends  to  uplift  the  laboring 
masses.  They  believe  that  when  they 
engage  in  industrial  warfare  to  get  more 
pay  or  more  leisure  they  are  also  fighting  Q 
to  improve  the  general  condition  of  their 
class,  though  at  a  present  sacrifice.  The 
complaint  that  the  hand-worker  does 
not  get  his  share  of  comfort  and  enjoy- 
ment in  this  world  is  centuries  old,  and 
has  often  been  well-founded;  and  the 
efforts  which  trades  unions  have  made 
to  improve  the  conditions  of  employment 
in  all  the  chief  industries  which  support 
civilized  society  are  so  commendable  that 
society  at  large  ought  to  be  patient  with 
the  false  theories  or  bad  practices  which 
have  impaired  or  counteracted  the  good 
effects  of  their  work,  such,  for  example, 
as  restrictions  on  apprenticeship,  limita- 
tion of  output,  advocacy  of  the  boycott 


52    Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

and  the  union  label,  failure  to  punish 
violence  on  the  part  of  their  own  mem- 
bers, and  the  persistent  effort  to  drive 
all  the  workmen  in  a  given  trade  into  the 
union  in  order  to  secure  a  monopoly  of 
labor  in  that  trade.  A  further  illustra- 
tion of  the  mixed  good  and  evil  in  their 
work  is  their  administration  of  their 
benefit  ftmds.  Many  unions  offer  sick- 
ness and  death  benefits  to  their  mem- 
bers, particularly  to  members  who  have 
maintained  membership  during  a  con- 
siderable number  of  years.  These  bene- 
fits, however,  are  sacrificed  if  the  old 
member  withdraws  from  the  union  or  is 
expelled.  The  benefits  acquired  there- 
fore by  long  membership  in  a  union  may 
be  used  and  are  used  as  means  of  disci- 
pline to  enforce  the  payment  of  fine* 
and   to    prevent   withdrawals.    Such   a 


In  a  Democracy  53 

loss  of  rights  acquired  by  payments 
made  through  many  years  is  not  allowed 
in  the  life-insurance  business  or  in  any 
well-conducted  benefit  society.  More-^ 
over,  funds  held  by  unions,  which  ought 
to  be  appropriated  to  securing  the  pay- 
ment of  benefits  to  which  their  members 
have  acquired  a  right  are  often  sacrificed 
in  the  emergencies  of  a  long  strike — that 
is,  they  are  used  for  war  purposes  at  the 
discretion  of  the  officers  of  the  union. 
Under  such  circumstances  the  union  will 
spend  any  money  within  its  reach  for 
what  it  calls  defence. 

The  motives  of  trades  tmions  during 
the  first  two-thirds  of  the  nineteenth 
century  might  in  general  have  been 
accurately  described  as  humanitarian; 
but  of  late,  since  high  wages  and  short 
hours  of  labor  have  been  secured,  the 


9 


^ 


cv 


54     Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

motive  most  frequently  in  evidence  has 
been  the  desire  for  higher  pay.  The 
democracy  is  not  deceived  on  this  point. 
I  It  sees  clearly  that  the  common  object 
of  a  imion  in  striking  is  now  to  secure 
higher  pay  by  the  hour  or  day,  or  higher 
pay  for  work  done  in  overtime,  any  vig- 
orous man  or  woman  being  perfectly 
competent  to  work  overtime.  The  sym- 
pathy of  the  democratic  masses  with  the 
unions  has  therefore  diminished  in  recent 
years,  because  a  selfish  pecuniary  motive 
is  not  so  attractive  to  the  democracy  as  a 
humanitarian  motive.  The  democracy 
also  perceives  that  the  working  of  some 
of  the  union  rules  is  not  htmiane,  but 
harsh  or  even  cruel.  Thus,  the  pre- 
scription of  a  uniform  wage  is  cruel  to  the 
inferior  workman  who  is  not  worth  that 
Vo.     wage.     He  cannot  satisfy  his  employer 


/.^  ^ 


In  a  Democracy  55 

at  that  rate,  and  though  he  may  get  spas- 
modic employment  when  his  industry 
is  in  a  prosperous  state  he  finds  himself 
out  of  work  whenever  a  downward  turn 
in  that  industry  occurs.  In  short,  the 
uniform  wage  is  cruel  to  the  journeyman 
who  is  not  worth  it,  and  to  the  old  man 


ijjiJ^ 


whose  capacity  is  diminishing.     The IffiP] 
form  wage  is  also  the  means  of  keeping!  ^  /y^i 
women  out  of  many  employments  which    ;       /^ 
the  unions  think  should  be  reserved  for  ■^' 
men.     The  unions  will   consent  to  the 
employment  of  women  only  on  the  con- 
dition that  women  receive  as  much  pay  / 
as  men.     Now  many  a  time  women  are     A 
really  not  worth  as  much  as  men;  there-       ^ 
fore  they  are  not  employed  at  all. 

The  belief  on  the  part  of  the  leaders 
of  trades  unionism  that  the  length  of 
the   day's   work   should   be   universally 


;K 


56     Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

the  same  has  led  them  to  advocate 
uniform  legislation  applicable  to  a  great 
variety  of  trades  as  to  the  number  of 
hours  which  should  constitute  a  day's 
work.  The  fact  is,  however,  that  dif- 
ferent trades  are  very  unlike  as  regards 
the  intensity  of  attention  demanded 
from  the  workmen  and  the  amount  of 
muscular  exertion  required  of  them;  so 
that  it  is  not  reasonable  that  the  same 
number  of  hours  should  constitute  a 
day's  work  in  such  different  employ- 
ments. The  amount  of  variety  occur- 
ring in  a  day's  work  should  always  affect 
the  length  of  the  day's  work.  In  the 
carpenter's  trade,  for  example,  or  the 
plumber's,  or  the  motorman's,  there  is 
change  from  hour  to  hour,  or  even  from 
moment  to  moment  in  the  things  to  be 
done,    whereas   piece    work    in    a    shoe 


i. 


In  a  Democracy  57 

factory  or  a  machine  shop  may  be  extra- 
ordinarily monotonous  and  incessant  in 
its  quality.  Thus,  farm  labor,  house 
work,  teaming,  mining,  quarrying,  and 
many  building  trades  present  great 
variety,  whereas  tending  machines  is 
usually  monotonous.  Some  industries 
require  absolutely  continuous  operation 
through  the  twenty-four  hours  and  day 
after  day,  as,  for  instance,  pig-iron  fur- 
naces, lime-burning,  and  carrying  vessels 
across  seas.  Others  can  be  profitably 
conducted  eight,  nine,  or  ten  hours  out 
of  the  twenty-four.  The  workmen  in 
some  trades  have  no  intervals  of  com- 
parative repose;  in  others  the  day*s  work 
is  broken  by  many  such  intervals.  Many 
industries  are  much  affected  by  the 
season  of  the  year,  so  that  they  must  be 
very  active  part  of  the  year,  with  a  long 


58     Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

day's  work,  and  comparatively  quiescent 
at  another  season,  with  a  short  day's 
work.  These  diversities  make  it  very 
unwise  to  prescribe  the  same  num.ber  of 
hours  for  a  day's  work  in  all  industries. 
'  The  reasonable  amount  of  labor  for  a 
man  or  a  woman  cannot  be  put  in  all 
industries  into  the  same  nimiber  of 
hours  per  day;  so  that  uniformity  in 
that  respect  is  not  a  rational  or  expedient 
aim. 

Trades  unionism  formerly  endeavored 
to  prevent  the  substitution  of  machinery 
for  hand  labor,  and  to  restrict,  so  far  as 
possible,  the  use  of  machinery  in  all 
unionized  trades.  This  policy  has,  how- 
ever, undergone  many  favorable  modifi- 
cations, although  a  belief  in  it  lingers 
and  occasionally  finds  forcible  expression. 
The   introduction   of   the   linotype   and 


In  a  Democracy  59 

monotype  into  the  printing  trade  was 
resisted  in  many  ways,  direct  and  indi- 
rect, and  some  of  these  resistances  still 
linger.  An  employing  printer  whose  shop 
was  unionized  could  hardly  use  a  small 
number  of  these  tj^esetting  machines, 
because  the  imions  prescribed  that  the 
operator  of  one  of  these  machines  should 
never  himself  repair  or  put  in  order  his 
machine  temporarily  disordered.  The 
operator  whose  machine  gave  out  must 
lie  back  and  call  for  the  machinist, 
although  he  knew  perfectly  what  was 
the  matter  with  his  machine,  and  could 
himself  rectify  it.  The  employer,  there- 
fore, must  have  use  for  machines  enough 
to  warrant  the  steady  employment  of 
a  competent  machinist.  This  was  an 
ingenious  application  for  restrictive  pur- 
poses of  the   principle  that    one    trade 


6o     Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

must  not  interfere  with  the  province  of 
another. 

The  unionist  demand  for  the  exclusion 
of  independent  workmen  from  shops  in 
which  union  men  are  employed  has  been 
enforced  successfully  in  many  American 
industries  in  which  the  ''closed  shop'' 
has  come  to  prevail;  but  in  recent  years 
many  large  employers  are  making  head 
against  this  monopolistic  practice  on 
the  part  of  unions.  The  closed  shop  is 
supported  by  two  results  of  experience; 
the  first  is  the  admitted  fact  that  in 
many  trades  it  is  impossible  to  employ 
in  the  same  room  two  sets  or  sorts  of 
men  who  are  not  on  good  terms.  It  is 
easy  to  spoil  maliciously  the  work  of  a 
man   whom   one   wishes   to   disturb    or 


annoy.     Benjamin  Franklin  in  his  Auto- 
biography points  out  that  in  the  printer's 


In  a  Democracy  ,    6i 

business  it  is  impracticable  for  a  journey- 
man to  resist  the  demands  of  a  majority 
of  his  fellow  journeymen.  He  refused 
to  treat  to  beer  when  he  first  got  employ- 
ment in  a  compositors'  room  in  London, 
but  found  his  position  so  uncomfortable, 
or  rather  so  impossible,  that  he  procured 
his  transfer  into  a  press  room,  and  there 
treated  his  fellow  pressmen  to  beer  in 
accordance  with  custom,  although  he 
took  none  himself.  In  working  under- 
ground it  is  essential  that  the  men  who 
work  in  the  same  crew  should  feel  no 
habitual  hostility  one  toward  another. 
Another  support  of  the  closed  shop  is 
the  preference  of  some  employers  for 
securing  through  a  union  the  delivery  of 
a  certain  number  of  laborers  for  an 
agreed-upon  period  and  at  a  specified 
price.    There    are    some    industries    in 


62     Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

which  this  kind  of  contract  has  great 
conveniences,  because  it  promotes 
promptness  and  certainty  in  delivering 
their  product,  and  enables  the  employer 
to  reduce  to  a  minimimi  the  pecuniary 
risks  of  contracting  to  make  articles 
which  cannot  be  delivered  for  some 
months  after  the  signing  of  the  contract. 
Such  employers  prefer  to  deal  not  with 
individual  workmen,  but  with  the  head 
of  an  international  union,  or  with  a 
padrone  or  other  labor  contractor.  The 
''open  shop"  is  supposed  to  be  a  shop  in 
which  tmion  men  or  non-union  men  are 
hired  indifferently;  but  the  so-called  open 
shops  are,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  often 
entirely  filled  with  union  men,  the  em- 
ployers proclaiming  a  good  general  prin- 
ciple under  the  phrase  ''open  shop,'*  but 
taking  no  pains  to  carry  that  principle  I 


In  a  Democracy  63 

into  practice.     On  the  part  of  the  more 
venturesome  employers  and  associations 


of  employers  the  resistance  to  the  closed 
shop  sometimes  takes  the  form  of  main- 
taining shops  open  only  to  non-union 
men.  Other  manufacturers  successfully 
maintain  separate  factories  or  establish- 
ments for  union  men  on  the  one  hand, 
and  for  non-union  men  on  the  other; 
so  that  they  can  give  employment  to  both 
classes  of  workmen — ^but  keep  them  sep- 
arate— and  observe  year  by  year  which 
sort  of  labor  produces  the  best  results. 
It  is  unnecessary  to  say  that  the  closed  \^  j^  IJ^ 
shop  is  far  from  being  a  democratic  inven-  o  ^v 
tion.     It  is  a  means  of  promoting  the 


interests    of    a    certain    group    or   class 
against  the  interests  of  the  mass.  \ 

A  characteristic  policy  of  trades  union-     v  ^ 
ism  has  been  to  prevent  competition  in 


64     Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

the  trades  it  controls.  This  is,  of  course, 
a  part  of  its  monopolistic  policy.  This 
/.policy  has  been  supported  in  the  educa- 
'^'  tional  and  philanthropic  world  by  much 
denimciation  of  competition  in  general. 
Many  people,  indeed,  have  talked  about 
competition  as  an  evil  which  ought 
everywhere  to  be  resisted  and  prevented. 
Respectable  business  men  have  thought 
it  right  to  defeat  the  attempts  of  govern- 
ments, corporations,  partnerships,  and 
individual  owners  to  get  competitive 
bids  on  work  to  be  done  by  contract.  It 
has  been  asserted  that  competition  was 
cruel  and  also  likelv  to  put  into  action 
men*s  most  selfish  and  hateful  passions. 
.y  \  Now  the  fact  about  competition  is  that 
j>-  ^J^  it  is  a  prime  means  of  improvement,  not 
y^  -  V^  ^  only  in  industries  but  in  the  develop- 
ment  of  personal    character.     Competi- 

^^ 


In  a  Democracy 


65 


tion  is  the  great  revealer  to  the  individual 
of  his  own  power  and  capacity.  To 
know  himself  is  impossible  without  active 
competition  with  other  people.  A  nation 
protected  from  competition  will  soon 
prove  itself  tmprogressive,  sure  to  decline 
when  its  progress  comes  to  depend,  not 
on  undeveloped  natural  resources,  but 
on  the  trained  skill  and  capacity  of  the 
population.  In  family,  school,  and  col- 
lege, generous  rivalry  and  emulation  are 
wholesome  and  animating  forces.  So 
they  are  in  the  national  industries.  To 
defeat  competition  in  any  way  is  there- 
fore to  inflect  a  serious  injury  on  society 
at  large. 

In  looking  forward  to  the  future  of 
trades  tmionism  in  a  democracy  it  is 
interesting  to  imagine  the  permanent 
functions  in  a  wisely  conducted  union. 


:>rt 


b 


66     Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

The  unions  are  sure  to  continue  to  exist; 
for  the  desire  among  men  of  the  same 
caUing  to  form  sympathetic  associations 
to  promote  their  common  interests  seems 
to    have    become    well-nigh    universal. 
What    policies    will    remain    when   the 
unwise  policies   have   been    done  away 
with    by    intimate    contact    with    free 
institutions,  and  by  growing  experience 
.^^r^      of  the  precious  results  of  industrial  and 
K       riocial  liberty?     (i)     Wherever  a  senti- 
'   ment  of  mutual  confidence  exists  between 
employees  and  employer  the  discipline 
/{J"  of  a  factory  or  shop  can  safely  be  en- 

trusted to  an  association  of  the  employees 
as  regards  complaints,  fines,  promotions, 
and  even  dismissals.  It  is  reasonable 
that  the  working  regulations  in  a  factory, 
mine,  railroad,  or  shop,  should  commend 
themselves  as  just  and  necessary  to  the 


/ 


In  a  Democracy  67 

employees  who  are  required  to  submit  to 
them.  (2)  The  unions  will  in  many 
industries  exercise  the  right  of  collective 
discussion  and  bargaining  concerning 
wages,  hours  of  labor,  shop  rules,  and  pro- 
visions for  the  health  and  comfort  of  the 
work  people.  All  these  matters  are  fair 
subjects  for  discussion  between  owners 
or  managers  and  workmen,  provided  that 
the  discussions  regard  always  not  only 
the  improvement  of  the  workmen's  con- 
dition, but  also  the  improvement  of  the 
product  of  the  works  in  quality  or  quan- 
tity, and  the  maintenance  of  a  stable 
and  profitable  business.  (3)  Unions 
could  perform  a  valuable  function  toward 
society  as  a  whole  by  urging  and  pro- 
curing the  utmost  publicity  concerning 
industrial  conditions  and  results,  through 
the  publication  of  annual  reports  to  gov- 


68     Future  of  Trades  Unionism 

emment  on  that  subject.  In  all  the 
industries  which  employ  great  ntmibers 
of  people,  particularly  if  they  deal  with 
the  necessaries  of  life,  the  public  at  large 
has  a  right  to  complete  information  about 
both  processes  and  results.  (4)  The 
tmions  might  make  it  their  prime  busi- 
ness to  secure  training  for  their  trades  at 
public  expense,  to  develop  the  skill  of 
their  members,  and  to  classify  them 
according  to  experience  and  skill,  pro- 
moting in  every  way  the  adoption  of  a 
wage  rising  with  age  and  merit.  (5) 
The  unions  might  be  active  in  promoting 
cooperative  good-will  from  bottom  to  top 
of  the  factory,  mill,  or  works  in  which 
each  union  is  interested,  inculcating  earn- 
estness and  alertness  in  work,  a  steady 
profit  for  capital  and  management,  and 
a  prevailing  spirit  of  liberty,  generous 


In  a  Democracy  69 

rivalry,  and  justice.  With  such  func- 
tions the  union  might  be  fairiy  expected 
to  contribute  greatly  not  only  to  the 
happy  development  each  of  its  own  trade, 
but  to  the  contentment  and  productive- 
ness of  industrial  society  as  a  whole. 
They  will  in  time  cease  to  resist  in- 
corporation, to  act  secretly,  to  break 
contracts,  to  seek  monopoly,  to  restrict 
output,  and  to  oppose  industrial  educa- 
tion. They  will  trust  to  discussion  and  \ 
publicity,  and  have  no  occasion  for  fight-  i 
ing  of  any  sort.  Far  from  trying  to 
arrest  or  destroy  industries,  one  of  their 
strongest  interests  will  be  to  keep  all  the 
national  industries  moderately  profitable, 
and  therefore  continuous  and  free  from 
serious  fluctuations. 


PART  II 

THE  FUTURE  OF  CAPITALISM  IN  A 
DEMOCRACY 

THE  public  liberty  which  procured 
for  workmen  the  right  of  combina- 
tion or  association  secured  to 
capitalists  the  same  right.  Now  capital 
is  more  mobile  than  labor  and  more 
readily  concentrated  in  the  hands  of  a 
few  leaders.  Hence,  associations  of  capi- 
talists in  corporations,  trusts,  and  syndi- 
cates have  more  fighting  force  than 
unions  in  a  serious  contest,  and  are  more 
formidable  in  democratic  society.  The 
unions,    though    secret,     are    after    all 

governed  by  a  majority  vote,    and  by 
70 


Future  of  Capitalism  71 

officers  elected  for  short  terms ;  the  capi- 
talistic organizations  tend  strongly  to  oli- 
garchic   methods    and    practices.     The 
individual    capitalist,    however,    or   the 
single   manager  of  an  agglomeration  of 
capital,  is  apt  to  value  his  individual 
liberty  of  action  much  more  highly  than 
the  single  workman  values  his  measure 
of    liberty,     and    accordingly    effective    / 
capitalistic    associations   came   into    ex-        Y 
istence  much  later  than  effective  trades 
unions.     Indeed,    as    has   already    been 
pointed  out,   capital  was  compelled  to 
organize  in   extensive   combinations  by 
the     comprehensiveness    and     strength  | 
of    the  labor  unions.     When    once   or-  \ 
ganized,  however,  the   capitalistic  asso- 
ciations develop   greater  fighting  power 
than  the  trades  unions.     They  can  better 
endure  a  stopping  of  income;  they  can 


72  Future  of  Capitalism 

avail  themselves  of  new  inventions  or 
discoveries;  and  they  can  enlist  the  pro- 
tective forces  of  society  against  the 
violations  of  public  peace  and  security 
which  seem  to  be  the  inevitable  accom- 
paniments of  industrial  warfare  on  any 
considerable  scale.  In  short,  in  carrying 
on  industrial  war,  corporations,  trusts, 
i  syndicates,  and  other  capitalistic  asso- 
ciations have  decided  advantages  over 
'labor  trusts  or  combinations.  The  pos- 
session of  these  advantages  on  the  part 
of  capitalists,  however,  tends  to  make 
the  general  public  sympathize  with  the 
weaker  party  in  the  industrial  strife,  and 
this  sympathy  is  often  a  determining 
consideration  in  the  ultimate  settlement 
of  a  specific  conflict.  To  be  sure,  the 
sympathy  of  the  public  may  be  mis- 
directed, but  that  misdirection  may  not 


In  a  Democracy  73 

prevent  it  from  being  effective,  par- 
tictilarly  in  short  though  grave  contests. 
It  is,  therefore,  for  the  interest  of  capital- 
istic combinations  to  consider  how  they 
can  win  and  keep  the  confidence  of  a 
democratic  community.  Let  us  then 
consider  first  what  the  democracy  de- 
mands, and  is  likely  to  demand,  of  capi- 
talists, singly  or  in  combination. 

The  first  thing  the  democracy  expects 
of  its  capitalists  is  sympathy  with  demo- 
cratic ideals,  and  the  consequent  aban- 
donment of  autocratic  and  feudal-system 
ideals.  It  also  expects  of  capital  a  ra- 
tional altruism,  or  at  least  an  enlightened 
egotism.  To  the  questions  of  the  selfish 
or  narrow-minded  financier,  manufac- 
turer, or  merchant — '*May  I  not  man- 
age my  own  business  as  I  please;  may  I 
not  do  what  I  will  with  mine  own?" 


y   74  Future  of  Capitalism 

f  J^democracy  answers — '*No/'  Democracy 
maintains,  on  the  contrary,  that  whoever 
JT^  conducts  a  large  business  which  requires 
many  workmen  has  a  direct  responsibility 
to  society  as  a  whole  for  the  himiane  con- 
duct of  his  business.  He  becomes  respon- 
sible for  the  health  and  cheerfulness  of 
thousands  of  persons.  Democracy  means 
to  magnify  and  enforce  this  responsibility 
of  the  capitalist.  It  will  not  trust  the 
welfare  of  thousands  of  families  merely 
to  the  capitalist's  possible  acceptance  of 
the  opinion  that  humanity  is  true  econ- 
omy, and  that  healthy  and  cheerful 
laborers  are  the  only  efficient  and  eco- 
nomical ones.  There  is  a  mass  of  modem 
legislation  in  all  the  freer  countries  which 
bears  witness  to  the  democratic  intention 
to  enforce  on  employers  himiane  conditions 
of  employment.     AH  the  legislation  relat- 


In  a  Democracy  75 

ing  to  the  niimber  of  hours  in  a  day's 
work,  holding  an  employer  or  owner  liable 
for  the  accidents  which  happen  to  people 
in  his  employ,  prescribing  the  cubical 
space  to  be  allotted  to  each  workman  in 
the  shop  or  factory,  prohibiting  the  use 
as  shops  of  cellars  and  rooms  without 
windows,  insisting  on  the  provision  of 
fire-escapes  and  similar  precautions,  and 
limiting  the  work  of  women  and  children, 
bears  witness  to  the  strong  democratic 
purpose  in  this  regard. 

The  supremacy  of  the  collective  right 
over  the  rights  of  the  individual  owner  or 
proprietor  is  recognized  in  a  great  variety 
of  modem  legislation,  which  interferes 
with  the  liberty  of  the  individual  in  the 
interest  of  the  mass.  Democratic  legis- 
lation insists  that  dirty  foods  shall  not 
be   manufactured,  or,    if   manufactured^ 


76  Future  of  Capitalism 

shall  not  be  sold;  that  impure  drugs  shall 
be  neither  made  nor  sold;  that  the  sale 
of  patent  medicines  shall  be  in  some  cases 
prohibited,  in  others  regulated,  and  in  still 
others  permitted  only  with  a  label  which 
gives  the  composition  of  the  medicine. 
Nowadays  an  individual  owner  cannot 
even  build  his  own  house  in  a  city  or 
suburb  just  as  he  chooses.  He  must 
conform  to  the  local  building  laws.  In 
certain  parts  of  a  city,  for  example,  there 
must  be  no  wooden  structtu'es.  In  the 
wooden  structures  permitted  in  suburbs, 
precautions  specified  by  statute  must  be 
taken  against  the  communication  of  fire. 
All  wiring  and  plvimbing  in  new  buildings  * 
must  be  made  satisfactory  to  public- 
inspectors.  Democracy  limits  closely  the- 
freedom  of  the  individual  capitalist  in- 
building    his    house,    his    shop,    or    his 


In  a  Democracy  77 

factory;  and  the  capitalist  has  already 
accepted  many  such  limitations  on  his 
individual  liberty.  It  is  altogether  likely 
that  in  the  future  democracy  will  go 
much  farther  in  these  respects,  in  order 
to  protect  the  interests  of  the  mass  of  the 
people  against  the  adverse  interest  of  the 
individual  producer  or  manufacturer. 
The  milk  industry  well  illustrates  .the 
tendency  of  democratic  society  in  these 
respects;  for  it  is  more  and  more  con- 
trolled, supervised,  and  regulated,  and 
with  good  results  on  the  public  well-being. 
Capital,  as  represented  by  the  farmer  and 
the  middle-man,  accepts  this  public  con- 
trol. Democratic  legislation  is  always 
finding  new  ways  of  protecting  the  wel- 
fare of  the  mass  of  the  people  against 
injuries  proceeding  from  individual  capi- 
talists  or  from  capitalistic  associations 


78  Future  of  Capitalism 

which  carry  on  productive  businesses 
capable  of  doing  injury  by  their  products 
or  by-products  to  the  population  as  a 
whole,  or  to  some  large  portion  of  the 
population.  Thus,  the  fouling  of  streams 
and  ponds  by  sewerage  or  by  the  rejected 
materials  of  factories  has  been  effectively 
controlled  in  many  States  of  the  Union 
by  legislation  which  strongly  commended 
itself  to  the  democracy ;  and  the  offenders 
themselves  no  longer  claim  that  they 
have  a  right  to  do  such  mischiefs.  In 
short,  iiidividual  capitalists  and  capital- 
istic associations  recognize  the  fact  that 
in  democratic  society  they  must  take 
account  of  the  influence  of  their  acts  on. 
oj^hers. 

-pother  democratic  ideal  which  demo- 
cratic society  may  confidently  be  expected 
to  enforce  in  the  long  nm  on  both  capital 


In  a  Democracy  79 

and  labor  is  resistance  to  monopoly. 
Democracy  is  demanding  of  capital  in 
plainer  and  plainer  terms,  first,  that  it 
shoiild  not  seek  a  monopoly  of  its  own, 
either  by  open  force  or  by  indirect  means, 
and  secondly,  that  it  should  resist  the 
monopolies  of  the  different .  kinds  of 
labor  which  trades  unionism  aims  at 
creating;  because  every  labor  monopoly 
abridges  seriously  the  just  liberty  of  the 
individual  workman.  More  and  more 
in  this  country  capital  recognizes  the 
justice  of  this  demand  made  by  de- 
mocracy. In  the  case  of  inevitable  mon- 
opolies, like  the  right  of  way  on  public 
highways,  or  a  complicated  telephone 
exchange,  or  a  useful  combination  of 
widespread  telegraph  and  telephone  lines, 
or  a  widely  distributed  hydro-electric 
power  generated  by  a  single  waterfall. 


8o  Future  of  Capitalism 

democracy  intends  that  the  management 
of  that  inevitable  monopoly  shall  be 
regulated  by  the  democratic  government 
in  the  interest  of  the  whole  commimity, 
or  of  the  constimers  of  the  monopolistic 
product;  and  more  and  more  capital 
itself  recognizes  the  justice  of  this  demo- 
cratic demand  in  all  the  freer  cotmtries. 
Thirty  or  even  twenty  years  ago  it  was 
not  imcommon  for  a  city  or  a  state  to 
grant  to  a  corporation  a  perpetual  fran- 
chise in  the  streets  of  a  city  or  the  high- 
ways of  a  town;  and  it  was  urged  in 
defence  of  such  gifts  made  in  perpetuity 
that  capital  could  not  be  induced  to  pro- 
vide desirable  transportation  facilities, 
or  the  gas  or  electric  plants  needed  by 
urban  communities  for  the  best  forms  of 
lighting,  or  the  facilities  for  convenient 
communication  by  telephone  unless  the 


In  a  Democracy  8i 

corporation  or  company  providing  such 
facilities  received  a  franchise  in  per- 
pettiity.  The  collective  interest  of  the 
democratic  community  has  now  so  com- 
pletely asserted  itself  with-  regard  to  the 
occupation  of  the  streets  and  highways 
by  monopolistic  corporations  that  capital 
no  longer  expects  to  be  given  perpetual 
franchises.  It  has  been  found  possible 
to  raise  the  money  needed  for  such  enter- 
prises on  charters  limited  to  a  definite 
period,  like  twenty,  thirty,  or  forty  years. 
The  democratic  doctrine  that  neither 
capital  nor  labor  should  seek  monopolies 
involves,  the  maintenance  of  competition; 
but  the  democracy,  while  recognizing 
that  competition  is  indispensable  to  pro- 
gress in  education,  in  industries,  and  in 
commerce,  does  not  believe  in  competi- 
tion without  limit.     It  distrusts  the  com- 


82  Future  of  Capitalism 

petition  which  is  pressed  to  the  abandon- 
ment  of  profit.     It  perceives  that  the 
competition  which  is  essential  to  freedom 
and  progress  may  be  maintained  without 
hostility  to  competitors  or  destructive- 
ness.    As  the  President  of  the  United 
States  Steel  Corporation  expressed  it  at 
a  dinner  given  by  an  association  of  coop- 
erating   and    competing    companies    or 
establishments  in  the  iron  and  steel  indus- 
tries:    '*You  believe  in  competition,  but 
not  hostility;  in  rivalry,  but  not  antag- 
^        onism;  in  progress  and  success  for  all, 
\       but  not  in  the  punishment  or  destruction 
Q(y       of  any."    This  recognition  by  capital  of 
W    ViSt^'  *^^  true"  democratic  doctrine  of  competi- 
L    ^^^V^jJj^tio^  over  against  monopoly  is  a  striking 
r^^      manifestation  of  the  effects  of  democracy 
^  on  capitalism. 

One  of  the  most  intelligent  and  far- 


f£> 


K 


In  a  Democracy  83 

reaching  of  democratic  ideals  is  the  ideal 
of  an  improving  lot  throughout  life  for 
every  faithful  workman  and  good  citizen, 
a  lot  improving  as  regards  earnings,  com- 
fort, and  the  consideration  in  which  he  is 
held  by  his  fellows.  Democratic  society, 
valuing  this  ideal,  insists  and  will  insist 
that  capital  shall  promote  it,  and  advance 
toward  it  in  all  its  dealings  with  labor. 
To  carry  out  this  ideal  of  the  democracy 
will  require  much  good  planning  and 
invention  on  the  part  of  capital,  par- 
ticularly in  the  highly  organized  indus- 
tries which  use  machinery  and  mechan- 
ical power.  The  workman  who  hopes 
to  improve  his  lot  throughout  life  must  ^^ 

see  before  him  the  prospect  of  a  rising  h^    ^  f^*^ 
wage.     He  must  not  receive  at  twenty-    .    y'v<-*^ 
one  as  large  a  wage  as  he  can  earn  bX>^^j%a^  ^^ 
forty  or  fifty.     He  must  see  clearly  from  f^>^^^^^ 


i*^!^ ^^^y84  Future  of  Capitalism 

y  the  beginning  that  he  can  improve  his 

Q  r  earnings  and  his  condition  by  being  intel- 

K  ligent,  zealous,  and  inventive  at  his  work. 

<^         He  must  see  that  every  improvement  in 
i         his    own   personal   skill   or   capacity   is 
i  "^     '  ^  likely  to  improve  his  earnings  and  the 
^  */      respect  in  which  he  is  held  by  his  employer 
and  his  comrades.    He  must  feel  sure 
y^  that  all  the  conditions  of  his  productive 

labor  favor  an  upright  life  on  his  own 
part  and  the  attainment  of  happy  family 
life.  He  must  have  good  grounds  for 
believing  that,  with  good  health  and  no 
more  than  the  common  exemption  from 
calamity,  he  can  himself  command  an 
improving  lot  and  an  honorable  career 
imder  the  established  rules  and  condi- 
tions of  the  industry  to  which  he  has 
chosen  to  devote  himself. 

Under  the  existing  conditions  of  the 


In  a  Democracy  85 

great  industries,  and  particularly  of  the 
mechanical  industries,  capital  must  make 
possible  the  realization  of  this  demo- 
cratic ideal,  if  democracy  and  capital  are 
to  be  thoroughly  reconciled.  It  is  capital 
that  nowadays  must  provide  systemati- 
cally a  rising  wage  for  the  individual 
workman,  carry  on  a  continuous  sorting 
of  employees  with  advancement  for  the 
profitable  employee,  make  provision  for 
prolonging  the  full  earning  capacity  of 
the  individual  workman,  and  for  keeping 
at  work  in  appropriate  ways  employees 
whose  productiveness  is  declining  through 
age  or  infirmity.  To  do  this  requires, 
first,  an  invention  of  methods  capable  of 
yielding  these  results,  and,  secondly,  a 
constant  supervision  intelligent  enough 
and  humane  enough  to  win  these  results 
on  an  immense  scale  and  yet  through  just 


86  Future  of  Capitalism 

rl     dealing  with  individual  workmen.     This 
^         '    sort  of  action  is  within  the  competency 
j/^  \    of   capitalistic   organizations,    independ- 
y  t  ^^^     ently  of  government,  or  trades  unions, 
or  any  other   social  power   capable  of 
exerting  a  pressure  on  large-scale  em- 
^    ployers.     In    the   future,    capital,  jwhen 
^ — under  intelligent   direction,   is  likely  to 
share  the  democratic  interest  in  the  wel- 
fare of  the  mass  of  the  population,  and 
therefore  is  likely  to  devote  more  and 
more  attention  to  the  realization  of  the 
democratic  ideal  of  an  improving  lot. 

One  element  in  an  improving  lot  is  a 
sure  provision,  gradually  made,  against 
premature  disability  and  the  probable 
infirmities  of  age,  a  provision  which 
begins  to  be  made  in  early  life,  and  is 
sectu^ed  by  long  and  faithful  service. 
Some  parts  of   the   public   service  and 


In  a  Democracy  87 

many  semi-public  and  private  corpora-  U).^  (^ 
tions  are  already  providing  such  ^^^^^^^^^^^i 
of  protection  against  calamity  and  infirm-p"^ 
ity  through  pension  or  annuity  systems; 
and  such  provisions  will  soon  be  regular 
parts  of  the  conscientious  employer's 
function,  whether  the  employer  be  gov- 
ernment, corporation,  or  partnership. 
The  methods  of  making  this  systematic 
contribution  from  capital  to  the  welfare 
of  the  employee  have  already  been  worked 
out  in  Europe.  They,  of  course,  present 
a  considerable  degree  of  variety,  because 
of  the  different  conditions  of  the  indus- 
tries in  which  they  are  applied;  but  the 
best  and  most  generally  applied  method 
seems  to  be  the  provision  of  an  annuity 
after  a  specified  number  of  years  of  ser- 
vice, an  annuity  purchased  with  money 
withdrawn  during  a  long  period  of  years 


88  Future  of  Capitalism 

from  the  wages  of  the  employee,  increased 
by  a  direct  contribution  each  year,  or  by 
contributions  at  stated  periods,  from 
the  employer,  and  kept  at  compound 
interest  in  individual  accounts.  This 
method  cultivates  in  the  employee  the 
habit  of  saving  a  portion  of  his  income, 
gives  him  a  comfortable  sense  of  security 
for  the  future,  and  increases  his  desire  to 
earn  a  rising  wage.  It  also  makes  it  his 
interest  to  remain  long  in  the  service  of 


.  the  same  employer,  and  to  contribute  in 
i^  every  way  in  his  power  to  make  the  busi- 
ness of  that  employer  stable  and  profit- 
^  ^  able.  The  contributions  of  the  employer 
^r  to  the  fund  which  buys  the  annuity  are 

an  essential  part  of  this  system.  With- 
out them  the  annuity  purchasable  at  the 
end  of  a  long  term  of  service  would  be 
too  small.     Moreover,  the   contribution 


In  a  Democracy  89 

of  the  employer  is  just,  because  he  will 

gain  much  from  the  satisfactory  work-    ^^^  \/j 

ing    of    such    an    annuity    system.     In  l'''^  m^,"^ 


f^^ 

c^^ 


the  upper  grades  of  a  service  which  is  ^^^A  yt, 
not  subject  to   ordinary  business  risks,  *" 

and  which  maintains  long  probationary  ^t^^ 
periods  before  admitting  to  its  permanent 
places,  the  direct  pension  system  is  to  be 
preferred  to  an  annuity  system;  but 
in  industrial  employments  the  annuity 
method  with  contributions  from  both 
employer  and  employed  is  more  generally 
and  securely  applicable,  and  has  decided 

advantages  in  regard  to  the  development 

ft 
of  sound  independent  character  in  work- 
ing men  and  women  by  the  thousand 
and  the  hundred  thousand.  This  is  a 
field  for  the  best  kind  of  democratic 
cooperation  between  capital  and  labor. 
Another  ideal   of  modem  democracy 


i  0        90  Future  of  Capitalism 

S^    ,is    imivers^L... education,,    education    for 


every  child,  and  education  all  through 
life,  and  not  during  the  school  age,  or 
the  school  and  college  age  alone.  The 
national  industries  and  politics  give  far 
the  greater  part  of  the  education  which 
ordinary  citizens  receive.  It  is  of  little 
avail  to  bring  up  children  well  through 
good  schools  if  they  are  to  be  stupefied 
by  monotonous  and  unimproving  labor 
as  soon  as  they  enter  upon  the  industries 
in  which  they  are  to  earn  their  liveli- 
hood, and  demoralized  by  low  politics 
as  soon  as  they  can  vote.  Hence  the 
grave  responsibility  of  capital  for  the 
education  of  the  masses  in  a  free  country. 
The  managers  of  great  industrial  estab- 
lishments can  be  quite  as  directly  and 
strongly  teachers  of  the  people  as  the 
schoolmasters    and    college    professors. 


I 


In  a  Democracy  91 

The  responsibility  of  rich  men  and  cor- 
porations for  the  ethical  training  of  their 
employees  grows  heavier  and  heavier 
with  every  new  generation  that  comes 
forward  into  the  factory  system.  Well- 
managed  factories,  railroads,  mines,  and 
shops  are  capable  of  providing  admi- 
rable training  in  obedience,  neatness, 
temperance,  courtesy,  fidelity,  and  hon- 
esty. In  all  urban  communities  this 
ethical  training  through  the  industries 
of  the  people  should  succeed  the  train- 
ing in  the  public  schools.  Capital, 
helped  by  skill  in  industrial  manage- 
ment, now  supplies  a  great  part  of 
this  training  for  the  mass  of  the  urban 
population;  and  in  the  future  under  -^ 
democratic  government  capital  will  do  W^  "^"^'^y 
more  and  more  of  this  admirable  work,  ^  ^^  ^ 
and  will  do  it  better  and  better.     The  ^:p4,'  U^>^^ 


92  Future  of  Capitalism 

possibilities  for  educational  improvement 
in  the  mechanical  industries  are  very- 
great.  The  extreme  division  of  labor 
and  the  prevailing  use  of  mechanical 
power  have  reduced  the  educational 
effect  of  the  single  workman's  job  by 
making  his  actual  performance  mon- 
otonous and  in  a  high  degree  repetitive. 
Capital  aided  by  skilful  management 
must  contend  against  this  evil  for  the 
individual,  which  has  accompanied  an 
increase  of  productive  power  highly  pro- 
fitable to  the  community  as  a  whole. 
To  invent  the  means  of  giving  varied  and 
progressive  work  to  the  individual  work- 
man, while  utilizing  machinery  to  the 
highest  degree  possible  and  developing 
cooperative  simultaneousness  in  pro- 
ducing each  of  the  many  parts  of  one 
complex  whole,  is  the  important  task  of 


UNIVERSiTY  ) 

^  OF  ^ 

\^^ur^v^;^>>In  a  Democracy  93 

the  manager  of  corporate  capital  in  the 
future  under  a  democracy.  In  this  way 
capital  can  become  a  democratic  agency 
for  making  the  great  body  of  the  people 
employed  in  the  national  industries  more 
intelligent,  and  righteous,  and  happier. 

The  democracy  of  the  future  is  likely     1 
to    force    on    great    agglomerations    of     ' 
capital  a  complete  publicity  as  to  their 
doings  and  their  results;  and  through  this 
publicity  capital  may  expect  to  obtain 
a   degree   of   security   against   suspicion      , 
and   injustice   which   it   has   never   yet    j 
enjoyed.     The    argument    in    favor    of 
publicity  for  the  receipts,  expenditures, 
profits,  dividends,  and  maintenance  and 
depreciation  charges  for  corporations  to 
which    public    law    gives    the    immense 
advantage   of   limited   liability,    is   irre- 
sistible.     Already    the    justice    of    this 


94  Future  of  Capitalism 

publicity  is  well  recognized  with  regard 
to  fiduciary  companies  and  public  fran- 
chise companies,  including  all  those  whose 
principal  function  is  the  transportation 
of  persons  and  goods.  The  principle  is 
not  so  well  recognized  or  so  extensively 
acted  on  with  regard  to  manufacturing 
companies;  but  within  the  near  future 
this  principle  will  probably  be  extended 
to  corporations  of  every  nature  which 
employ  large  bodies  of  men,  and  which 
are  imder  the  frequent  necessity  of  pro- 
curing new  capital  in  large  amoimts  from 
the  public.  In  a  democratic  society  it  is 
emphatically  the  interest  of  the  corpora- 
tions themselves  to  make  all  their  doings 
public,  for  the  reason  that  by  so  doing 
they  will  avoid  distrust,  secure  con- 
fidence, and  make  plain  their  educational 
function,  and  their  indispensableness  as 


In  a  Democracy  95 

ptirveyors  of  opportunities  for  steady 
productive  labor  for  a  large  portion  of 
the  population.  The  industrial  warfare 
that  has  been  going  on  for  more  than 
three  generations  of  men  has  obscured  the 
right  relation  between  capital  and  labor, 
when  it  has  not  actually  established 
wrong  or  contentious  relations  between 
the  two  indispensable  partners  in  pro- 
duction; and  much  of  this  very  injurious 
obscuring  of  the  good  and  developing  of 
evil  has  been  due  to  the  secrecy  with 
which  capital  has  endeavored  to  envelop 
its  operations.  Democratic  society  ought 
to  be  enabled  to  witness  all  the  admir- 
able effects  of  massed  capital  intelligently  1  ( 
managed.  Under  such  circimistances  the\ 
democracy  will  not  be  jealous  of  or  averse 
to  reasonable  profits  for  capital.  A  large 
proportion  of  the  democratic  mass  become 


96  Future  of  Capitalism 

themselves  capitalists — that  is,  they  own 
their  houses,  or  their  farms,  or  a  deposit 
in  a  savings  bank,  or  some  shares  in  a 
railroad  or  an  industrial  corporation. 
This  wide  distribution  of  property  is  the 
sure  defence  of  the  American  people 
against  Socialism. 

It  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  the 
democracy  dislikes  rich  men,  provided  it 
believes  their  riches  have  been  honestly 
and  fairly  acquired.  The  democracy  is 
beginning  to  see,  and  will  soon  fully 
understand,  that  inequality,  not  equality, 
of  possessions  is  the  inevitable  result  of 
freedom.  Democracy  will  not  interfere 
in  the  future  with  the  pursuits  of  the  rich 
man.  It  will  approve  of  appropriate 
splendors  in  the  private  life  of  rich  people, 
such  as  galleries,  libraries,  yachts,  equi- 
pages,   and  great    houses    and    estates. 


In  a  Democracy  97 

Indeed,  the  actual  democracy  of  to-day 
positively  dislikes  a  stingy  rich  man,  and 
approves  of  the  free-handed  rich  man  who 
spends  liberally  on  his  family  and  his 
household,  provides  for  himself  and  his 
friends  refined  pleasures,  and  gives  away 
money  for  good  objects  with  generosity 
and  a  personal  interest  in  the  recipients.  j  1  ' 
Capital  which  buys  and  sells  fairly  and  \  ^P*"^ 
publishes  all  its  doings  has  nothing  to  [Jjt^ 
fear  from  democracy  in  the  future.  OA  v 
the  contrary,  it  has  much  to  gain  from  a 
thorough  publicity  in  regard  to  all  its 
proceedings.  At  present  the  public  is 
far  from  comprehending  how  rapid  the 
destruction  of  capital  is  in  the  great 
modem  industries,  how  much  of  the 
accumulated  savings  of  each  generation 
is  destroyed  by  fire,  by  wear,  by  the  sub- 
stitution of  improved  machinery  for 
7 


98  Future  of  Capitalism 

that  actually  in  use,  and  by  thoughtless 
waste.  Knowledge  of  these  incessant 
destructions  should  be  brought  home  to 
the  democracy;  so  that  they  may  realize 
what  the  pressing  need  of  new  capital 
means  in  all  great  undertakings,  and  how 
much  intelligence  and  energy  must  con- 
stantly be  brought  into  play  to  secure 
the  new  capital  needed,  and  to  make  use 
of  it  to  the  best  advantage. 

In  another  respect  capital  will  derive 
great  advantage  from  publicity  in  accord- 
ance with  law.  If  accompanied  by  sound 
public  accounting,  it  will  tend  to  make 
profits  steadier  and  business  therefore 
more  stable.  This  greater  stability  or 
steadiness  is  a  great  object  for  capital  as 
well  as  for  labor.  For  the  'employees  the 
stability  of  an  industry  means  steady 
work,  and  that  steady  work  is  a  great 


In  a  Democracy  99 

moral  as  well  as  material  object.  In 
many  industries  the  mass  of  the  laboring 
people  already  perceive  that  it  is  their 
interest  that  the  capital  necessarily  em- 
ployed in  the  industry  should  receive  a 
steady  and  adequate  return.  Nobody 
likes  to  work  for  a  person,  firm,  or  cor- 
poration whose  business  is  fluctuating 
and  insecure.  The  employer  must  have 
a  steady  income,  in  order  that  the  em- 
ployee should  feel  a  comfortable  security 
for  his  own  earnings.  In  the  absence  of 
publicity,  employees  may  suspect  their 
employer  of  making  an  tmreasonable  or  ^cJ^ 
imfair  profit  at  their  expense.  Under  aj 
r6gime  of  publicity  there  would  be  no 
possibility  of  this  distrust  or  suspicion, 
and  all  employees  would  wish  for  evidence 
that  their  employer  was  doing  a  soimd 
and  profitable  business.    Already  some 


i 


100         Future  of  Capitalism 

American  industries  in  which  strict 
accotmting  and  a  moderate  degree  of 
publicity  have  been  introduced  supply 
evidence  that  the  employees  desire  that 
the  capital  invested  receive  a  fair  return. 
Thus,  railroad  employees  are  inclined 
to  resist  imreasonable  reduction  of  pas- 
senger and  freight  rates  on  the  railroads 
where  they  are  employed.  They  prefer 
to  work  for  a  railroad  which  earns  a  profit, 
and  whose  stock  has  a  good  standing  in 
the  market.  In  short,  publicity  concern- 
ing the  management  of  corporations  and 
concerning  the  use  made  of  other  masses 
of  capital  is  not  only  essential  to  the  ab- 
olition of  industrial  strife,  but  also  to  the 
establishment  of  right  cooperative  rela- 
tions between  capital  and  labor;  and  from 
that  publicity  capital  as  well  as  labor 
would  reap  large  and  solid  advantages. 


In  a  Democracy  loi 

When  the  capitalist  class  as  a  whole  is 
strongly  influenced  by  the  desire  to  pro- 
mote the  real  welfare  and  happiness  of  the 
workmen  they  employ,  they  will  invari- 
ably take  thought  for  the  means  of  pro- 
viding their  workmen  with  permanent 
homes  which  are  not  only  wholesome, 
but  cheerful,  and  suitable  for  the  bringing 
up  of  a  family.  This  provision  means 
much  more  than  the  building  of  good 
cottages,  although  that  is  an  essential 
feature  of  it.  It  covers  a  careful  layout 
of  the  manufacturing  suburb  with  good 
streets  well-paved,  well-lighted,  and  pro- 
vided with  serviceable  sewers  and  a 
trustworthy  water  supply.  It  means  an 
adequate  ntimber  of  playgroimds  and  pub- 
lic gardens.  It  means  also  contributions 
to  schools,  churches,  and  buildings  for 
recreation  and  social  enjoyment.     It  is 


102  Future  of  Capitalism 

not  expedient,  however,  that  the  same 
corporation  which  owns  and  carries  on 
the  mill,  the  shop,  or  the  works,  should 
also  own  the  houses  occupied  by  the 
workmen.  Either  the  workmen  should 
be  encouraged  and  helped  to  own  their 
houses,  or  a  separate  corporation  should 
build  the  houses  and  lease  them  to 
the  workmen.  Moreover,  houses  should 
never  be  let  to  workmen  at  rents  which 
do  not  yield  a  fair  return  on  the  capital 
invested  in  the  houses.  If  rents  are 
below  real  value,  the  owners  are  either 
exercising  charity  towards  their  tenants, 
or  they  are  substituting  an  indirect 
payment  of  wages  through  a  reduced 
rent  for  payment  in  cash  of  the  wages 
earned.  Either  course  of  conduct  is  in 
the  highest  degree  inexpedient.  Self- 
respecting  workmen  do  not  want  charity, 


In  a  Democracy  103 

and  they  greatly  prefer  the  direct  pay- 
ment of  their  fiill  wages  to  any  indirect 
payment  of  a  part  of  them. 

Much  of  the  so-called  welfare  work 
now  done  by  corporations,  partnerships, 
or  persons  who  carry  on  large  industrial 
establishments,  is  partially  vitiated  by 
the  apprehension  on  the  part  of  the 
employees  that  it  has  a  charitable  or 
patronizing  quality  rather  than  a  real 
economic  value.  As  a  matter  of  fact  it 
is  emphatically  the  interest  of  the  em- 
ployer to  contribute  in  every  possible 
way  to  the  keeping  of  his  establishment 
wholesome,  tidy,  and  cheerful.  It  is  his 
interest  to  do  so,  because  thereby  his 
working  force  is  made  more  efficient. 
In  democratic  society  capital  and  labor 
should  be  absolutely  of  one  mind  on  this 
subject;  but  to  this  end  it  must  be  dis- 


104         Future  of  Capitalism 

tinctly  understood  on  both  sides  that 
welfare  work  is  not  only  a  matter  of 
good  will  and  humanity,  but  also  an 
effective  mode  of  promoting  efficiency 
and  productiveness. 

Interference  with  steady  work  by  bad 
financial  management,  by  insistence  on 
exercising  the  power  of  instant  dismissal, 
or  by  making  arbitrary  dismissals  for  no 
assignable  cause,  are  very  serious  mis- 
chievous influences  which  may  proceed 
from  unwise  employers.  The  unneces- 
sary closing  of  some  works  belonging  to  a 
syndicate  or  trust,  in  order  to  increase 
the  profits  in  other  works  selected  to  be 
maintained,  is  another  grave  injury  to 
employees,  because  the  apprehension  of 
such  closings  tends  to  prevent  the  em- 
ployees from  acquiring  permanent  homes 
and  local  attachments.     It  is  impossible 


In  a  Democracy  105 

for  any  factory  or  shop  to  build  up  a 
trustworthy  and  permanent  set  of  skilled 
employees,  if  there  is  no  certainty  that 
the  factory  or  shop  is  itself  to  be  perma- 
nent. In  all  the  higher  employments, 
such  as  those  furnished  by  well-estab- 
lished banks,  insurance  companies,  rail- 
roads, and  mills,  the  employees  may 
reasonably  feel  that  the  employer  is  a 
durable  or  permanent  one,  and  this  sense 
of  security  is  a  large  element  in  their 
well-being. 

A  frequent  cause  of  contentions  be- 
tween employers  and  employed  is  the 
lack  of  a  proper  system  throughout  the 
employer's  establishment  of  dealing  with 
complaints  and  grievances.  The  prudent 
and  just  employer  will  always  be  careful 
to  provide  his  employees  with  ready 
access  to  a  disinterested  official  whenever 


io6         Future  of  Capitalism 

the  employee  feels  that  he  has  been 
unjustly  treated  by  his  immediate  su- 
perior, or  by  any  of  his  mates;  and  there 
should  always  be  an  appeal  from  the 
decision  of  the  first  official,  to  whom  the 
complaint  is  brought,  to  a  higher  officer. 
In  many  well-conducted  commercial  and 
industrial  establishments  it  has  already 
been  foimd  possible  to  refer  complaints 
and  grievances  in  the  first  instance  to  a 
committee  chosen  from  the  employees 
by  the  employees.  In  some  instances  the 
final  decision  on  complaints  is  given  by 
such  a  committee.  This  is  a  democratic 
method  which  is  desirable  in  all  indus- 
tries in  which  the  necessary  discipline  can 
be  maintained  in  that  manner.  There 
are  tmquestionably  some  industries  which 
require  such  a  high  degree  of  cooperation 
and  such  a  strict  discipline  that  it  would 


In  a  Democracy  107 

not  be  safe  to  give  final  power  for  the 

adjustment  of  complaints  and  grievances 

to  a  committee  of  the  employees,  tmless 

that  committee  contained  several  grades 

of  employees.      Recognizing  clearly  the 

fact  that  the  discipline  needed  in  different 

industries  must  necessarily  have  different 

degrees    of    strictness    and    inflexibility, 

capital  will  still  find  ample  room  for  a 

large    increase    of    considerate    dealing 

with    complaints    and    grievances,    and 

will  find  its  interest  in  accepting  to  the 

utmost  possible  limit  democratic  ideas 

on    this    subject.     In    particular,    it    is  # 

almost   invariably  wise  to  procure   the^^^^^ 

assistance  of  the  employees  in  making     ^^^,^,^1,^,,.^  ^ 

shop   regulations,   because  the  working 

regulations  of  an  industrial  establishment 

may  be  so  conceived — ^indeed  they  often 

are — as  to  kill  the  spirit  of  cooperation 


io8         Future  of  Capitalism 

and  loyalty  between  employers  and  em- 
ployed. The  capitalist  who  really  desires 
to  secure  content  and  good  feeling 
throughout  his  establishment  will  always 
consult  his  employees  frankly  and  freely 
with  regard  to  shop  regulations.  Such 
consultation  is  as  much  his  interest  as 
theirs.  On  the  other  hand,  special  in- 
stances of  effective  loyalty  and  good 
will  among  employees  should  always  be 
promptly  noticed  and  rewarded,  as  should 
also  be  inventive  contributions  to  the 
intelligent  conduct  of  the*  works  or  of  any 
department  thereof. 

Much  has  already  been  said  of  the 
educational  function  of  managers  of  great 
industries.  There  is  an  important  part 
of  this  educational  function  which  is  not 
always  thought  of  in  that  way,  namely, 
the  protection  of  the  mass  of  employees 


In  a  Democracy  109 

from  temptation  to  do  unfaithful  work, 
or  to  rob  the  employer  by  wasting  the 
time  he  pays  for,  or  by  pilfering  from  the 
establishment.  It  is  the  bounden  duty 
of  all  employers  to  protect  the  people 
they  employ  from  all  these  temptations 
to  wrong-doing.  In  particular,  all  em- 
ployees who  of  necessity  handle  money 
belonging  to  the  employer  should  be  pro- 
tected against  the  temptation  to  take 
some  of  it.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  em- 
ployer to  provide  every  possible  restraint 
and  check  on  those  dishonestly  inclined, 
and  every  possible  means  of  demonstrat- 
ing and  maintaining  the  honesty  of  the 
upright.  Cash  registers  and  all  other 
contrivances  for  recording  audibly  and 
,  visibly  cash  receipts,  time  clocks  and 
r  watchmen's  clocks,  and  all  methods  of 
accounting    for    the    exact    number    of 


no  Future  of  Capitalism 

tickets  sold,  for  pieces  of  goods  issued,  or 
for  the  daily  expenses  and  sales  of  travel- 
ling agents,  are  means  toward  the  dis- 
charge of  this  duty  of  employers  to  make 
stealing  and  unfaithfulness  difficult  if 
not  impossible,  and  to  give  the  faithful 
man  the  means  of  demonstrating  his 
fidelity.  For  similar  reasons  it  is  the 
duty  of  employers  to  provide  an  adequate 
amount  of  supervision  of  the  daily  labor 
of  their  workmen,  and  to  resist  strenu- 
ously all  tendencies  towards  shiftless, 
sluggish,  uninterested,  and  therefore  in- 
efficient, labor.  This  is  a  duty  towards 
the  employees  themselves,  and  not  merely 
towards  the  proprietors  or  shareholders 
whose  capital  is  employed  in  the  busi- 
ness. All  this  is  only  one  application  of 
the  general  democratic  doctrine  that 
capital  should  take  thought  for  the  true 


In  a  Democracy  m 

welfare  of  all  the  men  and  women  it 
employs,  and  should  therefore  promote 
steadily  the  honor  and  fidelity  of  all  its 
employees. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  true 
principles  of  satisfactory  employment  in 
the  great  national  productive  industries, 
such  as  the  textile,  mining,  and  metal 
industries,  are  those  which  already  obtain 
in  the  highest  employments,  such  as  the 
learned  and  scientific  professions,  and 
the  professorial  function  in  colleges  and 
universities.  In  those  occupations  one 
finds  the_possibility  and  probability  of 
establishing  a  permanent  home  and  fam- 
ily life,  of  obtaining  an  increasingincome 
as  life  advances,  of  winning  an  improving 
lot,  of  profitinfy  bv  one's  own  intelligence, 
alertness,  and  fidelity,  and  of  exhibiting 
loyalty  and  good  will  at  work,  and  so 


112  Future  of  Capitalism 

obtaining  an  increasing  consideration 
among  one's  fellows  and  employers. 
These  being  the  very  things  which  make 
the  higher  occupations  desirable,  they 
must  be  the  things  which  would  make 
the  lower  occupations  more  desirable. 
It  is  only  by  the  combined  efforts  of  capi- 
tal and  labor,  working  harmoniously  to 
ethical  and  democratic  ends,  that  this 
result  can  be  attained. 

In  order  to  be  truly  serviceable  in  the 
best  sense  to  democratic  society,  capital 
must  not  only  abandon  monopoly  seeking 
and  uncontrolled  monopolistic  manage- 
ment itself,  but  must  also  support  de- 
mocracy in  its  resistance  to  monopolies  in 
general.  The  most  dangerous  monopo- 
lies for  democratic  society  are  the  mon- 
opolies of  all  the  labor  in  a  great  variety 
of  trades,  monopolies  which  have  come 


In  a  Democracy  113 

into  existence  on  a  formidable  scale  within 
recent  years.  They  are  doubly  formid- 
able because  when  successfully  organized 
they  not  only  control  prices,  but  also 
admission  to  the  trades.  It  is  the  duty, 
therefore,  of  capital  in  a  democracy  to 
resist  steadily  the  monopolies  of  labor 
created  by  trades  unions,  and  to  deprive 
those  monopolies  of  the  means  and 
instnmients  through  the  use  of  which  (U-^^'^^^ 
they  obtain  such  monopolistic  powers. 
These  means  or  instnmients  are  the 
closed  shop,  the  boycott,  and  the  tmion 
label.  It  is  in  the  interest  of  democracy^  ^  tJU^  ^ 
itself  that  capital  should  oppose  these 
monopolistic  tendencies  of  labor;  for  the 
strongest  and  most  comprehensive  desire 
of  democracy  is  for  the  progressive 
development  of  freedom  for  the  individ- 
ual,   and   of   free   institutions,    and   the 

8 


f'^'Sjt^ 


1 14  Future  of  Capitalism 

thoughtful  democracy  of  to-day  accepts 
absolutely  Louis  Pasteur's  definition  of 
freedom — a  state  in  which  every  one  is 
permitted  to  develop  freely  and  to  apply 
his  utmost  powers. 

Modem  democracy  believes  also  that 
every  person  can  and  should  promote 
the  interests  of  all  while  seeking  his  own, 
and  that  all  can  and  should  promote  the 
interests  of  each.  Democracy  believes 
in  the  free  pursuit  of  natural  happiness 
and  durable  satisfactions;  but  that  free 
pursuit  becomes  impossible  if  the  pro- 
ductive labor  of  the  community  is  divided 
into  rigid  monopolistic  groups,  whi^h 
limit  admission  to  the  several  trades,  con- 
trol prices,  and  at  pleasure  order  their 
members  to  stop  working.  The  mass  of 
the  consumers  are  not  in  condition .  to 
control  effectively  the  policies  and  move- 


In  a  Democracy  115 

ments  of  monopolistic  labor  organiza- 
tions, because  they  are  an  unorganized 
mass.  Capital  through  its  numerous 
firm  organizations  can  effectively  resist 
labor  monopolies,  and  should  do  so  in 
the  interest  of  the  constmiers  and  of  the 
community  at  large.  In  order  to  resist 
effectively  they  must  appeal  to  public 
opinion  through  the  best  channels  of 
publicity,  and  must  bring  into  play  the  . 
slow-moving  forces  of  courts  and  legis- 
latures. In  taking  such  measures  capi- 
tal should  be  recognized  as  the  friend  j;^^J\r  * 
and  servant  of  democracy — that  is,  of 
freedom  and  the  rights  of  man. 
i  The  resistance  of  capital  to  labor  mon- 
opolies is  already  manifested  in  several 
different  ways.  In  some  industries  it  is 
possible  to  maintain  successfully  the 
open  shop — that  is,  shops   or  works  in 


ii6  Future  of  Capitalism 

which  union  men  and  non-union  men  can 
work  succCwSsfuUy  side  by  side.  In  other 
industries  it  is  possible  for  trusts,  cor- 
porations, or  partnerships,  to  maintain 
unionized  factories  or  works,  and  also 
factories  or  works  having  the  same 
product  in  which  all  the  hands  are  non- 
imion,  each  sort  being  in  competition 
with  the  other.  In  other  words,  the 
same  owner  may  carry  on  some  unionized 
shops  or  factories  and  some  in  which  all 
the  labor  is  non-union.  This  method  has 
the  advantage  of  permitting  the  owner 
to  find  out  in  the  course  of  years  which 
sort  of  labor  is  the  most  profitable — a 
question  concerning  which  there  are 
many  opinions  or  guesses,  but  few  facts 
based  on  long  experience.  A  third  mode 
in  which  capital  can  resist  labor  mon- 
opoly is  also  already  in  evidence.     Be- 


In  a  Democracy  117 

cause  of  the  present  wide  distribution 
of  mechanical  power  through  electricity, 
and  of  the  very  common  use  of  the  tele- 
graph and  telephone,  manufacturers  are 
much  freer  than  they  used  to  be  to 
establish  their  ''plants"  outside  of  cities 
and  in  the  open  country,  where  the  men 
and  women  who  work  in  the  factories  can 
make  permanent  homes  and  have  a  more 
wholesome  life  than  is  possible  for  opera- 
tives in  crowded  cities.  A  manufactur- 
ing poptolation  placed  in  the  cotmtry  is 
much  more  likely  to  be  independent  and 
frugal,  and  to  develop  strong  local  attach- 
ments, than  a  population  crowded  into 
tenements  and  city  streets.  The  spread- 
ing out  of  a  mantifacturing  population 
over  large  areas  under  the  leadership  of 
capitalistic  associations  will  in  time  build 
a  strong  defence  against  labor  monopolies. 


ii8  Future  of  Capitalism 


y 


This  doctrine  of  the  duty  of  capital  to 
resist  the  monopoHstic  features  of  trades 
unionism  assimies  that  trades  unionism 
no  longer  needs  to  resort  to  strikes, 
attacks  on  non-union  men,  boycotts,  and 
union  labels  in  order  to  obtain  fair  wages, 
reasonable  hours  of  labor,  and  the  whole- 
someness  of  the  places  where  work  is 
done.  Publicity  will  accomplish  these 
and  all  other  reasonable  ends  which 
trades  imions  have  proposed  for  them- 
selves. In  these  days  the  object  of  the 
monopolistic  policies  of  trades  imions  is 
to  get  higher  and  always  higher  wages, 
in  short,  to  make  more  money;  but  so 
far  as  this  object  is  a  reasonable  one,  it 
can  best  be  obtained  through  pubHcity 
and  through  the  development  of  a  truly 
cooperative  spirit  between  capital  and 
labor. 


In  a  Democracy  119 

That  democracy  will  in  the  future 
take  all  necessary  steps  to  secure  as  far 
as  possible  the  welfare  of  workmen  in  all 
the  great  industries  of  the  country  may 
be  safely  inferred  from  what  democracy 
has  already  done  in  that  direction.  It 
has  already  imposed  wise  limits  to  the  iu^^ 
hours  of  work  of  men,  women,  and,^^}^;^^ 
children  by  the  day  and  the  week.  It  ^"^^^^ 
has  passed  laws  securing  adequate  ven- 
tilation in  mills  and  shops,  proper  sani- 
tary arrangements,  guards  for  dangerous 
machinery,  and  seats  for  workpeople 
who  can  sit  at  their  work.  It  has  made 
employers  responsible  for  injuries  to 
employees,  and  has  thereby  created  a 
new  branch  of  insurance,  casualty  insur- 
ance; and  the  managers  of  this  new 
insurance  business  employ  numerous  in- 
spectors   of   boilers,   engines,    elevators, 


I20  Future  of  Capitalism 

fly-wheels,  and  machine  tools,  and  dis- 
triboite  information  about  safety  devices 
and  the  means  of  preventing  accidents. 
To  be  sure,  the  United  States  is  far 
behind  Germany  in  regard  to  workmen's 
compensation  insurance;  but  this  is  only 
due  to  the  comparative  slowness  of 
democratic  government  in  adopting  novel 
legislation,  even  that  which  is  obviously 
beneficial.  Democracy  has  already  given 
mechanics  and  other  workmen  special 
advantages  in  collecting  the  money  due 
them — ^witness  the  numerous  acts  relat- 
ing to  mechanicsLljens.  Public  provision 
has  been  made  in  many  States  for  the 
inspection  of  factories  and  small  shops, 
and  although  this  public  service  is  not 
yet  as  efficient  as  it  ought  to  be,  it  clearly 
indicates  that  democratic  government 
can  be  relied  on  in  the  future  to  exercise 


In  a  Democracy  121 

efficiently  this  useful  supervision.    The 

boards  of  health  established  by  demo- 

T — — — — " — -~* 

cratic  legislation  in  many  States  prophesy 
the  enlargement  in  the  future  of  medical 
supervision  of  many  trades  and  arts  in 
the  interest  of  the  whole  body  of  con- 
stimers  as  well  as  of  the  workmen  em- 
ployed in  those  trades.  The  supervision 
by  public  officials  of  bakeries  and  slaugh- 
ter-houses, and  of  the  marketing  of 
animals,  meats,  vegetables,  and  fniits, 
warrants  a  confident  expectation  that 
wholesome  conditions  of  productive 
labor  are  going  to  be  insisted  upon  by 
democratic  government.  So  much  in 
regard  to  the  future  may  be  safely 
inferred  from  the  experience  of  recent 
years.  These  good  ends  are  to  be  accom- 
plished in  the  future  by  legislation  made 
effective  by  public  officials.    There  will  be 


122  Future  of  Capitalism 

no  causes  of  dispute  of  this  sort  between 
employers   and   employed,    and   neither 
strikes  nor  any  other  forms  of  violence 
will  be  necessary  to  secure  wholesome 
and  equitable  conditions  of  labor.    The 
only  weapon  needed  to  secure  suitable 
conditions  of  labor  in  either  old  or  new 
-  ^       industries  will  be  publicity, 
.c/^  \^      The  proper  proportion  of  the  wages 
y    y^^/^      of  labor  to  the  interest  on  capital  will  be 
H    ^  in  the  future  the  main  cause  for  conten- 

tion  between  employees  and  employers. 
On  this  subject  j%int  agreements  will 
doubtless  be  useful,  and  arbitration  may 
sometimes  be  resorted  to  when  a  dispute 
over  wages  has  reached  the  stage  of 
active  warfare;  but  it  is  to  be  hoped 
that  industrial  disputes  will  result  in 
warfare  less  frequently  in  the  future 
than  in  the  past,  partly  because  of  the 


'^^ 


In  a  Democracy  123 

abandonment  by  unions  of  their  monopo- 
listic practices,  and  partly  because  of 
the  increased  publicity  given  to  the  ac- 
counts and  methods  of  manufacturing 
establishments. 

The  wages  boards  and  industrial  courts 
which  have  been  tried  in  Australia  have 
not  yet  proved  their  usefulness  as  means 
of  preventing  industrial  war  even  in  that 
exceptional  commtmity;  and  they  are 
unpromising,  because  they  presuppose 
strong  unions  which  have  succeeded  in 
enforcing  a  preference  for  tmion  over 
non-union  men.  Australian  legislation 
on  old-age  pensions  is  unattractive  to 
people  who  have  confidence  in  the  ftmda- 
mental  good  effects  of  democracy,  not 
only  on  industrial  life  but  on  social  and 
family  life.  A  law  which  provides  for  a 
person  sixty-five  years  of  age,  who  has 


124  Future  of  Capitalism 

been  resident  in  the  state  for  twenty-five 
years,  a  pension  of  $2.50  a  week,  but 
undertakes  to  compel  near  relatives  to 
contribute  to  this  pension  by  conducting 
a  public  inquiry  into  the  circtmistances 
of  the  pensioner,  is  not  attractive  to  per- 
sons who  believe  democratic  society  likely 
to  be  more  prosperous  and  more  moral 
than  any  other.  Modern  political  phil- 
osophers hope  that  democracy  will  root 
out  the  physical  and  moral  causes  of 
inefficiency,  poverty,  and  misery,  so  that 
the  number  of  the  defective  and  depend- 
ent classes  shall  be  largely  reduced.  It 
is  reasonable  to  hope  that  preventive 
medicine  will  make  even  greater  pro- 
gress in  the  twentieth  century  than  it 
did  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  nine- 
teenth, and  by  its  efficient  service  reduce\ 
the  amount  of  sickness  and  the  number 


In  a  Democracy  125 

of  premature  deaths  which  now  bring 
many  families  temporarily  or  permanently 
to  destitution. 

The  motto  of  Switzerland — each  for 
all  and  all  for  each — expresses  concisely 
the  fundamental  belief  of  democracy  that 
every  one  can  and  should  promote  the 
interests  of  all  while  he  seeks  his  own, 
and  that  all  can  and  should  promote  the 
interests  of  each.  This  belief  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  conception  that  there 
is  real  antagonism  between  the  inter- 
ests of  capital  and  of  labor.  The 
last  ten  years  have  witnessed  much 
progress  toward  the  abolition  of  that 
deplorable  conception.  It  is  for  the 
democracy  of  the  future  to  abolish  it 
altogether. 

The  establishment  of  right  relations 
between  capital  and  labor  will  not  pre- 


126  Future  of  Capitalism 

vent — indeed  may  promote — the  pro- 
duction in  every  generation  of  a  small 
number  of  rich  men,  the  men  who  have  a 
natural  gift  for  money-getting  and  busi- 
ness administration.  What  will  the  de- 
mocracy ask  and  expect  of  these  rich  men? 
First,  that  they  share  their  peculiar 
pleasures  and  privileges  with  the  public 
to  the  utmost  degree  possible  without 
destroying  their  own  enjoyments.  Sec- 
ondly, that  they  use  for  the  public  bene- 
fit a  fair  proportion  of  the  wealth  they 
owe  in  part  to  free  institutions  and  the 
collective  action  of  the  communities  to 
which  they  have  severally  belonged.  In 
other  words,  democratic  society  will 
expect  that  great  fortunes,  which  have 
been  made  under  the  protection  of  public 
law  out  of  natural  public  resources  and 
the  needs  and  habits  of  the  total  poptila- 


In  a  Democracy  127 

tion,  shall  be  unselfishly  used  in  part 
for  the  promotion  of  public  interests. 
The  democracy  will  expect  its  rich  men 
to  contribute  liberally  to  hospitals,  asy- 
lums, dispensaries,  schools,  museums, 
churches,  theatres,  music,  and  the  fine 
arts,  and  to  help  secure  to  public  use 
gardens,  groves,  shore  paths,  mountain 
trails,  ponds  and  streams,  parks,  and 
wide  prospects.  Already  in  the  United 
States  many  rich  men,  sharing  the 
democratic  ideals,  meet  generously  these 
expectations  of  the  democracy.  The 
future  will  see  the  extension  of  these 
good  works  of  the  rich  in  democratic 
society. 

The  democratic  ideals  and  tendencies 
concerning  capital  and  labor  are  not  to 
be  realized  to-morrow.  That  realization 
needs  time  and  patience.    The  present 


128         Future  of  Capitalism 

duty  of  patriots  is  to  comprehend  them, 
pursue  them,  and  look  forward  with 
confident  expectation  to  their  ultimate 
fulfilment. 


OF  THE 


^^lEormU 


i^' 


'  ^.s^smsi^s^^s^sx^hii 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

^     This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 

&%Mne  schedule:  25  cents  on  first  day  over  due- 
P_  50  cents  on  fourth  day  overdue 

One  dollar  on  seventh  day  overdue. 


OCT  29    1947 
DEC    1   ^947 


2\A^ 


49^^ 


Apr  I  ^ It  ^_ 
MAR  1  5  1956  LO 


24Apr'56BC 


11956  LU 


STACKS 

N0V3  019'33 
REC'D  LD 


4Jan'57tw  ^^'^H  2- r64 -4  PM 

22{f,ar'S4P8 


p:-'>" 


C'D  lW  -^  ^^  ^^  ^  mM 


FiECEIVED  BY 


27M8y'62»Vn 

LD  21-100m-12,'46(A2012s^4i£0^j   -j-      IWIAI 


1FU*3    1985 


VB  61557 


GENERAL  LIBRARY  ^  U.C.  BERKELEY 


BDDm31M0b 


II 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


